BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Third Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 5 November (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Palestinian Child Detainees

Alex Cunningham: What assessment he has made of the treatment of Palestinian child detainees in Israel.

Hugh Robertson: Before answering, may I briefly place on the record my appreciation for the work of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? He will be greatly missed by his many friends in the House and across the region.
	Despite some progress, we retain serious concerns about Israel’s treatment of Palestinian child detainees. The British ambassador in Tel Aviv wrote again to the Israeli Justice Minister on 14 October to urge further action.

Alex Cunningham: I welcome the Minister to his new post. May I commend the Foreign Office report “Children in Military Custody” for exposing how the authorities in Israel arrest Palestinian children in the middle of the night, interrogate them without parents or lawyers present, bully them into signing confessions in a language they do not understand, and jail children as young as 12 years old? Will the Minister outline what action he is taking and tell the House how many of the 40 recommendations in the report have been carried out?

Hugh Robertson: I am due to make my first visit to the region next week, so will be addressing many of the concerns outlined in the hon. Gentleman’s question. As he knows, the Foreign Office funded the report carried out by Baroness Scotland. We continue to urge the Government of Israel to implement it in full. As I have said, I will be taking that up next week.

James Clappison: I warmly welcome the Minister to his responsibilities—if I may say so, he brings a terrific track record.
	Does the Minister agree that the question of detainees is inextricably linked to the overall security situation in the region and progress in peace talks? Does he share my concern that Hamas is resolutely and literally trying to undermine the peace process in the region by building a tunnel from Gaza into Israel, no doubt for the purposes of promoting terrorism? What can we do to remove that obstacle?

Mr Speaker: That was quite a cheeky attempt by the hon. Gentleman. I think the Minister should try to focus his remarks on the issue of child detainees. We are grateful to him for doing so.

Hugh Robertson: Thank you, Mr Speaker—it will, of course, be a great pleasure.
	As I said in my answer to the previous question, I look forward to my initial visit to the region next week. The concerns that my hon. Friend raises will be a topic of much discussion. The encouraging thing is that, for the first time in many years, we are in a process. I encourage both sides to engage in that peace process for the greater good of the country and the region.

Andy Slaughter: When the Minister visits the region, will he raise with his Israeli counterparts why Israel is the only country in the world that systematically tries children in military courts, and why about a quarter of the children currently in custody are held in Israel, which is also contrary to international law?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, I will do so. As I have said, the Foreign Office helped to fund Baroness Scotland’s excellent report into many of the issues surrounding child detainees. We not only funded that report, but entirely support it. During my time as a Minister, I will do everything I can to ensure that its recommendations are properly and correctly implemented.

David Burrowes: I join hon. Members who have concerns about the treatment of detainees, but is it not important to focus on the source of the problem, which is Palestinian children being infected by the glorification of violence and hate education, which, sadly, are supported by the Palestinian Authority? Can the Minister assure me that taxpayer funding does not support such activities?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, on the basis of three weeks’ work, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In a sense, his question points to the importance of everybody concerned getting behind the peace process. If that comes successfully to fruition, many of those problems will be solved in its wake.

Detention of British Nationals (Russia)

Jim Cunningham: What representations he has made to the Russian authorities regarding the recent detention of six British nationals in that country.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with the Russian Foreign Affairs Minister on 25 September and again on 6 October. Our ambassador in Moscow did the same with Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Titov of Russia on 22 October.

Jim Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but there are reports that some British nationals in Murmansk prison have not had access to medical attention, and that some are in solitary confinement. What representations have the Government made regarding the conditions of their pre-trial detention and their access to medical treatment? What response have the Government received?

David Lidington: Since the detentions were announced by the Russian authorities, we have sent a team of British officials each week to Murmansk to ensure that the detainees’ consular needs are being properly looked after. We have taken up with the prison authorities, or with other Russian authorities as appropriate, all the concerns that the detainees themselves have expressed to us about the conditions in which they are being held. At the moment, they are telling us that their conditions are “broadly acceptable”, but we stand ready to take up any further concerns that they may have.

Martin Horwood: Given the unjustifiable detention of British citizens, will Ministers follow the example of Councillor Wendy Flynn, mayor of Cheltenham, which is Sochi’s twin town, and refuse any offers of hospitality or visits in connection with Sochi’s winter Olympics in 2014?

David Lidington: I am afraid that the Government rules on accepting hospitality are already strict and limit what Ministers can do. The key point is that the Sochi winter Olympics will provide an opportunity for people from this country, including journalists and editors, to meet and engage with Russians of all backgrounds and to stand up for the values in which we believe.

Gareth Thomas: As these exchanges have reinforced, there is concern on both sides of the House about the continuing detention of the British Greenpeace activists and journalists. Given the growing fears about the conditions in which they are being held—conditions condemned by the European Court of Human Rights last year, I understand—and the length of time they are likely to be incarcerated, can I ask the Minister gently what exactly it will take for the Foreign Secretary to persuade the Prime Minister to intervene on their behalf?

David Lidington: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities? Of course this is a return to European activity from the days when Tony Blair
	appointed him as one of his champions of the single currency in the Labour party. Having served his time in quarantine, he is now being allowed out again.
	The hon. Gentleman may not have been here yesterday, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he stood ready to speak to President Putin whenever that would best help the welfare of those who are being detained and lead to a satisfactory outcome for them. The search for a satisfactory outcome to this case remains at the top of the Government’s priorities, and it determines how we handle individual representations.

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Wayne David: What recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

William Hague: We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including freedom of expression and judicial independence. I will use my attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to see the situation on the ground and raise our concerns directly with the Sri Lankan Government.

Wayne David: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. However, if he and the Prime Minister are to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, what will their strategy be to ensure that the Sri Lankan authorities hear loudly and clearly the representations that are being made and, more importantly, take action?

William Hague: Of course we will take up these issues. Between the Prime Minister and I we will be visiting the north of Sri Lanka to see for ourselves what is happening. We will press the Sri Lankan Government to investigate all human rights abuses, including the shocking allegations of acts of sexual violence committed during and after the conflict. We will urge them to allow free expression and to stop intimidation of journalists, and call on them to bring about reconciliation and political reform. It is important that we give that message to them in person.

Malcolm Rifkind: It is both unfortunate and disturbing that the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference is being held in Sri Lanka at this time. While the intention of the Prime Minister to visit northern Sri Lanka, where the Tamils mainly live, is very much to be welcomed, will he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raise at CHOGM the recommendations of the Commonwealth eminent persons group that were discussed at the last Commonwealth conference, in particular the recommendation of a commissioner for the rule of law, democracy and human rights? If such a commissioner had been appointed at the last CHOGM, we would have a much more objective assessment of the true circumstances in Sri Lanka at this moment.

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend played a distinguished role in the eminent persons group report. It is a pity that not every aspect of that report was adopted by the Commonwealth as we debated it over
	the last couple of years, although the charter for the Commonwealth was agreed, as was a more active role for the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We will continue to raise these issues in the Commonwealth.

Douglas Alexander: Just a moment or two ago, the Foreign Secretary said, in relation to human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, that he will be taking up these issues when he travels there. However, in answer to a written question in July, the Foreign Office stated that they “expect progress” in human rights and post-conflict reconciliation in the run-up to the summit in November. Despite writing to the Minister responsible to follow up on that answer, we have not yet received a reply. Will the Foreign Secretary set out now what specific progress on the two key benchmarks identified by the Government has been made since July?

William Hague: First, I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being appointed Labour’s campaign co-ordinator for the next general election. As he ran its last general election campaign and David Miliband’s leadership election campaign, we on the Government Benches are delighted with the appointment, even if it makes him a slightly part-time shadow Foreign Secretary.
	There have been some steps forward in Sri Lanka, which we have to recognise, including the northern provincial council elections that took place in September. They were generally peaceful and well-regarded, but all the issues I listed remain. While there have been some steps forward, many more are needed.

Douglas Alexander: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is mounting evidence that Sri Lanka is heading in the wrong direction? It is not simply that these issues “remain”. This month, the Foreign Affairs Committee criticised the
	“scant evidence of progress in political and human rights”.
	In August, the UN human rights commissioner said that Sri Lanka was
	“heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction”,
	and even the Government’s own 2012 human rights report warned of “negative developments”. The Prime Minister’s announcement six months ahead of the summit has proved both a misjudgment and a missed opportunity. Will the Foreign Secretary, even at this late stage, urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision to confirm his attendance at the summit?

William Hague: No. There are many serious criticisms, including in our own reports, of the human rights record in Sri Lanka. Of course these are issues that we want to take up in Sri Lanka, but the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will consider matters such as the future of the millennium development goals, expanding international trade and upholding human rights in other parts of the world. We need to be present at those discussions with a quarter of the globe. We also need to recognise that the consequences for the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom not attending a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting would be very serious and could be long term. That is why it is important, and that is why we decided to be there at the table, as well as raising the concerns so well expressed in this House.

Steven Baker: For British Tamils in Wycombe, the situation in Sri Lanka is a cause of profound and continuous concern. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that British people who hail from troubled territories overseas are entitled to the most robust representation from the British Government?

William Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and those people will continue to see that robust representation, including at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Kashmir

Debbie Abrahams: What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Kashmir.

Hugo Swire: The UK is deeply concerned about recent violent incidents in Kashmir. These incidents have caused regrettable loss of life on both sides of the line of control. We welcome the call for dialogue from both sides in response to these incidents and the steps they are taking to prevent future hostilities.

Debbie Abrahams: The territorial dispute in Kashmir is the longest running in the world. It is a particular issue for many of my constituents, and the violence and human rights abuses have spanned decades. I have been disappointed with the Minister’s response. What specifically can he tell me about action being taken on conflict resolution programmes in this area?

Hugo Swire: The first thing to put on the record is that we believe any solution should be between the two Governments of India and Pakistan. We welcome progress made in September during a meeting of both Prime Ministers in New York. The British Government do help, and we have had discussions on human rights as recently as last month. From our conflict pool, we support key work on projects to promote trade, development and capacity building in the area.

Bob Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Jammu and Kashmir are part of India and that part of India they should stay until such time as India says otherwise? Will the Government take action to ensure that state-sponsored terrorism in this disputed territory is not allowed to continue?

Hugo Swire: It is precisely for that last reason that we urge discussions between the two countries, and I am pleased to report that some progress has been made. Along with other positive measures, both countries have agreed to double bilateral trade by 2014 and India has lifted a ban on direct investment from Pakistan. As the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said, however, this is a long-running conflict, and we stand by to help; but ultimately it can be resolved only by the two countries in question.

Attacks on Christians (Pakistan)

Sheila Gilmore: What recent discussions his Department has had with the Government of Pakistan regarding attacks on Christians in that country.

Hugh Robertson: We have publicly condemned the attacks on the Christian communities in Peshawar and raised the issue of religious minorities with the Pakistani Prime Minister and other Ministers, including during recent ministerial visits to Pakistan and at the UN General Assembly in September.

Sheila Gilmore: I share the Minister’s horror at the recent incident, as do many people in this country, particularly in the Christian community. We are accustomed to tolerance here. What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Pakistani Government take steps to protect Christians in their country?

Hugh Robertson: That assistance effectively comes in two ways, not only through the help we provide to tackle counter-terrorism, such as the enhanced strategic dialogue and the joint working group on counter-terrorism, but through our aid programme to Pakistan, which I hope addresses—and I am sure does address—the root causes of extremism and tries to ensure that this does not happen again.

Andrew Bridgen: What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to protect freedom of religious expression not only in Pakistan, but across the world?

Hugh Robertson: That is a good one for my first Foreign Office questions. I will restrict my answer purely to Pakistan. The guarantees to which my hon. Friend alludes are established in the constitution of Pakistan, and we would urge everybody involved in the process to uphold those guarantees and ensure that these sorts of acts do not happen again.

Mark Lazarowicz: The recent bomb attack on All Saints’ church in Peshawar, which the Minister referred to, was felt deeply not just in Pakistan, but by many in Scotland of Pakistani origin and others, because it was the home church of a Church of Scotland minister, who lost his mother and two other relatives in that dreadful attack. Besides going through the United Nations, how can the Minister raise this issue within the international community? For example, can the EU not also be involved in raising these concerns with Pakistan?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, of course it can. Many other countries will have links to Pakistan in the same way that this country and the church the hon. Gentleman mentioned do, and I know that the EU will be raising the issue in the same way. There are very special relationships between this country and Pakistan, however, and the help that communities such as the one he represents and mentions can offer will be of enormous benefit at a time like this.

John Spellar: Does the Minister agree that the treatment of Christians is the canary in the mine for the treatment of other minority faiths and ethnic groups—especially, in the case of Pakistan, the Hazaras and Ahmadis—and will he press the Pakistani
	authorities first to provide protection for Christians and their property, and secondly to take action against discrimination, whether by the state or by other groups?

Hugh Robertson: The answer has to be yes. It is a good question and a good point. Absolutely a key part of our intervention and conversations with the Pakistani Government is about ensuring that minority rights and religious freedoms, as enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan, are indeed protected.

Iran (Nuclear Capability)

Philip Hollobone: What recent assessment he has made of how close Iran is to producing (a) sufficient weapons-grade nuclear materials to make a nuclear warhead and (b) a ballistic missile capable of delivering such a warhead to Tel Aviv or Riyadh.

William Hague: Iran continues to enrich uranium to 20% and to expand its capacity for enrichment. This brings Iran much closer to having sufficient material for a nuclear device, should it decide to enrich further. Most large middle eastern cities and some major cities in Europe are within range of Iran’s several hundred medium-range ballistic missiles.

Philip Hollobone: Clearly, enriching uranium beyond the 3.5% required for civilian use sends a very dangerous signal. Is not Iran’s apparent enthusiasm for talks nothing but a protective smokescreen to dissuade the Israelis from undertaking military engagement and to allow Iran to cross the nuclear finishing line and develop a nuclear warhead?

William Hague: I believe we have to test to the full Iran’s willingness to negotiate and to come to an agreement with the international community on its nuclear programme. The programme continues: Iran claims that its 20% enriched uranium is fuel for its one small research reactor, but it already has enough enriched uranium to fuel that reactor for the next 10 years. That is why we argue that there is no plausible peaceful explanation for the continuation of enrichment and of many features of Iran’s programme. But we must test Iran’s willingness to negotiate, and we continue to do so.

Andrew Gwynne: But is not one of the dangers of Iran pursuing this nuclear ambition that it could empower some of the terrorist organisations that Iran sponsors around the world, and particularly in the middle east? Does not that further undermine the process of peace in that region?

William Hague: Yes, it absolutely undermines the process of peace. The threat of nuclear proliferation in the middle east, which is what the Iranian nuclear programme presents to the world, is of course a major danger to the future of the middle east, just as we are trying to make progress in the middle east peace process and to bring together a peace conference on Syria. It is deeply unhelpful across the board.

John Baron: Given that reciprocity has been a sticking point in previous nuclear talks with Iran, with, perhaps, opportunities missed by both sides, what thought has been given by
	the west to making a gesture of good will as a first move, perhaps with a relief of sanctions—time-limited if necessary—given that such a move might reinforce the hand of the moderates within the country?

William Hague: Substantive changes in our policy on sanctions will require substantive changes in Iran’s nuclear programme, of course. Negotiations took place in Geneva on 15 and 16 October and a further round of such negotiations is now planned for 7 and 8 November, the end of next week. We welcome the improved tone and posture of Iran in those serious negotiations, but it will have to take serious and real steps for us to be able to reciprocate.

Iran (Nuclear Programme)

Simon Hughes: What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for successful negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme.

William Hague: I welcome the more positive approach taken by the Iranian Government at the recent E3 plus 3 talks in Geneva. Foreign Minister Zarif presented a basis for negotiations and we have begun more substantive discussions on how to address the serious concerns about the nuclear programme. If Iran is willing to take the necessary first steps on its programme, we are ready to take proportionate steps in return.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the constructive reply from the Foreign Secretary. Given that Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League peace envoy on Syria, has recently said that Iran’s participation in the Geneva talks would be fruitful, natural and necessary, will the Foreign Secretary consider an invitation to him to help in that process and in the negotiations with Iran on nuclear weapons?

William Hague: It will ultimately be up to the UN to decide who can be brought around the table in a Geneva peace conference. I have already discussed Iran’s approach to Syria with the Iranian Foreign Minister and have put it to him that it is time that Iran accepted—along with Russia and many other non-western countries—that last year’s Geneva communiqué is the basis for discussing the future of Syria and that we are out together to create a transitional Government and bring the conflict to an end. Iran has not yet indicated that; it would be very helpful were it to do so.

Bob Ainsworth: Notwithstanding the many problems that there have been between our two countries, there are people on both sides of the House who thought that the initial response from the Government to the change in tone from Iran was overly cautious. Surely this situation warrants a little risk. To what degree is the Foreign Secretary prepared to travel to try to solve, if at all possible, this ongoing situation?

William Hague: We are all prepared to go a long way to resolve this problem and have indicated that in the direct discussions with Iran. I have already had two meetings with the Iranian Foreign Minister and a telephone
	call with him earlier this month. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have agreed to appoint non-resident chargés as a step up in our bilateral relations. We are, as he can gather, busily engaged in these nuclear negotiations and our officials will meet bilaterally again in the margins of the negotiations. Of course we have to conduct ourselves cautiously on something of such immense importance as Iran’s nuclear programme, but there is no lack of readiness to engage with Iran and to open up our diplomacy to them.

Robert Halfon: My right hon. Friend might have seen the BBC “Newsnight” report last night showing that there has been strong Iranian intervention to support the Assad regime. If it is wrong for the west to intervene militarily to stop mass murder in Syria, would it not be right for the United Nations to condemn Iran for supporting the Assad Government?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to say that foreign intervention in Syria—directly so in the case of Iran—is helping to prop up a regime that is engaged in the brutal murder of huge numbers of its own people. That is now well known around the whole world. That policy will have to change if Iran is to play a constructive role in bringing peace to Syria.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the discussions with Iran, has the issue of a nuclear weapons-free middle east been raised? When it came up at the nuclear non-proliferation review conference, Iran supported that principle. A conference that would include Israel has been envisaged. Does the Foreign Secretary have any plans for such a conference, and any news on when it might take place?

William Hague: We do have plans for that. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter before and, as he knows, the United Kingdom was instrumental in putting a commitment to such a conference into the nuclear non-proliferation review in 2010. A Finnish facilitator has been hard at work trying to assemble the conference. The atmosphere in the middle east has not exactly been conducive to doing so, but the United Kingdom will continue to press for that conference to be brought together.

Syria

Julie Elliott: What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the conflict in Syria on stability in the region.

William Hague: The situation in Syria is worsening. There are now more than 2 million refugees putting severe strains on neighbouring countries. One third of the UK’s £500 million humanitarian funding for Syria will go to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, and we are redoubling our efforts to find a political solution to the crisis.

Julie Elliott: What specific request for humanitarian assistance have the Government received from the Lebanese and Jordanian Governments?

William Hague: They have requested large-scale assistance to deal with the huge refugee population. Syrian refugees now make up roughly one fifth and one twelfth of the total populations of Lebanon and Jordan respectively. The total assistance that we give to Lebanon has gone past £70 million, and we also give tens of millions to Jordan, so a great deal of British assistance is going to those countries. We are the second biggest donor in the world to the Syrian humanitarian crisis.

Peter Tapsell: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that, despite his great personal effort—on which I warmly congratulate him—to try to bring about a successful Geneva II conference on Syria, it is unlikely to make much real progress unless all sides are involved: not only Iran but the Alawites? I ask him to reflect on the success of the Geneva conference of 1954, which against all expectations put an end to the Indochina war, in which enormous casualties were suffered by France. Anthony Eden insisted, despite the strong opposition of John Foster Dulles, that all sides should be present. Why cannot my right hon. Friend do the same?

Mr Speaker: It was around that time that the right hon. Gentleman was personal assistant to the said Sir Anthony Eden. It is modesty only that prevents him from pointing out that fact to the House, but I have done so in his stead.

William Hague: There are certainly lessons to be learned from 1954—and, indeed, from other successful peace negotiations—and the process does require all sides to be ready to make the necessary compromises for peace. We would base a Geneva peace conference on the outcome of our talks in Geneva last year, with the aim of creating a transitional Government with full executive authority, made up of figures from the regime and from the opposition in Syria, by mutual consent. Of course it is envisaged that Alawites would be represented in any regime delegation to such a conference, as my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Nigel Dodds: The Foreign Secretary has referred to the large amounts of aid given by the UK and the US to help the humanitarian refugee crisis in the middle east, but in a recent meeting the Jordanian interior Minister contrasted the amount committed by the UK and the US to the amount actually delivered on the ground. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment and clarify whether the money to help with the refugee crisis is getting through?

William Hague: The UK has a very strong record of delivering our assistance, and I am not aware of any dissatisfaction on the part of Jordan, although I will discuss these matters with His Majesty the King of Jordan tomorrow, so I will check whether there is any further assistance or more rapid delivery of it that we can provide to Jordan over the coming weeks.

Ian Lucas: We all agree that progress at the Geneva II talks is vital to stability in the region, but when I spoke to the Syrian National Coalition last week it told me that it had not yet decided whether to attend the talks. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what efforts he is making to ensure that it is in the room for the vital discussions that are needed?

William Hague: The reason the Syrian National Coalition was here in London last week and why the hon. Gentleman was able to meet it was that it had come to meet me and 10 other Foreign Ministers to discuss going to the Geneva talks. That was the whole purpose of the day! The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the full body of the national coalition has not yet taken the decision on that. It has to convene a general assembly to do so, and the date for it keeps shifting; it is now most likely to be towards the end of next week, around 9 November. It did receive a clear message from me and from many other Foreign Ministers, including Secretary Kerry and Prince Saud, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, that it should be prepared to go to Geneva and to take part in a peace conference.

Guto Bebb: rose—

Mr Speaker: We need to speed up; progress is desperately slow.

UK Exports

Guto Bebb: What progress his Department has made on increasing UK exports to established and emerging markets.

Hugo Swire: Between 2009 and 2012, UK exports increased by 23% in the wake of the deepest recession in post-war history. This growth has primarily been driven by demand in emerging markets. In South Korea, exports have risen by 103%; in China, excluding Hong Kong, by 80%; in Russia by 76% and in Brazil by 64%. Exports to the US increased by more than 8% between 2010 and 2012, although UK exports to the EU were flat.

Guto Bebb: I thank the Minister for his response. During the past decade, the value of bilateral trade between the UK and Israel has increased by over 60% to about £3.8 billion. It gives me particular pleasure to note that the trade between Wales and Israel with respect to life sciences is doing extremely well. As a result of these facts, will the Minister join me in welcoming this growth in trade between the UK and Israel—a country that is forward looking in its economic performance.

Hugo Swire: We greatly welcome the flourishing of UK-Israel trade, which is the result of concerted efforts by the Government, including, as my hon. Friend said, the creation of the UK-Israel tech hub, which celebrated its second anniversary this month, and our burgeoning co-operation with Israel in respect of life sciences, which was cemented in an memorandum of understanding on science co-operation, signed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Israel in May.

Anas Sarwar: Half of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, and half of the UK’s trade is with the rest of Europe. Will the Minister outline the benefits Scotland gets from the wider exports that the UK does with the world and the economic benefits that that brings for my constituents and others in Scotland?

Hugo Swire: Yes, with both pleasure and conviction. Scotland benefits from being part of the UK in this renaissance of trade that the UK is undergoing. I must
	point to a recent fabulous article in
	Le Monde
	, which said we can now predict sustainable future growth—gone are fears of repeated recessions and new injections of liquidity. The jobs market and consumer confidence are both improving—improving for the United Kingdom and improving for Scotland, as well as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

John Redwood: What conclusions does the Minister draw from the fact that exports from some countries outside the EU to the EU are increasing more rapidly than our own?

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my earlier comment that trade with the EU has been adversely affected by the downturn in the EU economy. I think what it shows is the flexibility of the British economy, not least because we did not join the euro and because this Government have a more determined approach to driving exports globally, both with our existing partners and in emerging markets.

John Healey: The British embassy in Washington part-sponsored a state-by-state study of jobs in the United States that are linked to exports and the potential gains from a comprehensive EU-US trade and investment deal. No such study has been carried out in relation to the United Kingdom. Will the Government commission a similar area-by-area analysis of British jobs, output and exports?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I shall certainly look into it, and I should be happy to discuss it with him in more detail. British trade with the United States remains incredibly important. I will not rehearse the statistics again, but we have been vulnerable to the rather changeable circumstances in the domestic UK economy of late.

China

Duncan Hames: What assessment he has made of opportunities for the UK arising from recent ministerial delegations to China.

William Hague: Recent visits by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for Transport highlighted the huge potential of the UK-China relationship. Their visits achieved significant breakthroughs in relation to civil nuclear co-operation, low-carbon partnerships, financial services, transport and inward investment.

Duncan Hames: I welcome that news, and, in particular, the jobs that the investment will bring. Perhaps most significant is the fact that Britain will be the first country outside China to have its own renminbi investment quota, which will establish London as a leading centre for renminbi trading. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this success is founded on our open society and our long record of promoting open economies, and demonstrates to our partners in China that Britain is most certainly open for business?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain is very much open for business, and it is in China’s interest to invest in it. According to official Chinese statistics, the United Kingdom is now the most popular destination in Europe for Chinese investment, and the fourth most popular globally. Last year, our own exports to China hit £1 billion a month for the first time.

Keith Vaz: Some of the ministerial delegations included British business men so that the case could be made for British business. How many of them were of Chinese origin?

William Hague: I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I imagine that quite a few of them were. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details. What I can say is that we have built a tremendous relationship—in both directions—with China, founded on the activities of Chinese business men and British business people of Chinese origin, and we will continue to do so.

LGBT Community (Russia)

Jenny Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with the Russian Government regarding violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Russia.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed our concern about those attacks when they met their Russian opposite numbers last month.

Jenny Chapman: As the Minister knows, there is significant and growing concern in this country about violence in particular but also about the banning of certain publications, and about threats to remove children from LGBT couples. Will he consider raising the issue with the Council of Europe?

David Lidington: We will certainly consider raising, at every possible opportunity, our concern both about Russian legislation on the matter and about what is, inevitably, anecdotal evidence of appalling attacks on individual LGBT Russian citizens and civil society organisations.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister agree that, while these attacks are quite outrageous—as is the fact that the Russian Government seem to be legislating towards such behaviour—it is better to engage with Russia than to boycott events if we are to bring about change?

David Lidington: I agree with my hon. Friend both about the importance of making our views clear and about the importance of engagement. Our diplomats who are stationed in Russia make a point of attending meetings of civil society organisations, including LGBT organisations, to demonstrate that we are standing up for the values in which we believe.

Iran (Child Executions)

John Howell: What recent reports his Department has received on child executions in Iran.

Hugh Robertson: We receive regular reports on the human rights situation in Iran, including information about executions. Executions for crimes committed by people under the age of 18 are a breach of international law, and the UK opposes the use of the death penalty as a matter of principle.

John Howell: According to leading human rights groups, Iran has the shameful record of being the world’s largest executioner of juvenile offenders. What representations can the Government make to ensure that that barbaric practice ends, in accordance with the country’s obligations under the convention on the rights of the child?

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This country has, under the EU sanctions regime, helped designate over 80 human rights violators in Iran, and, of course, helped establish the UN special rapporteur on Iran’s human rights and lobbied for his mandate to be renewed at the March UN human rights council.

Louise Ellman: Is the Minister aware of growing concern about the human and civil rights of Baha’is in Iran and, in particular, about the UN special rapporteur’s report? What action does he intend to take?

Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I am absolutely aware of that concern, which is a key concern of the UN special rapporteur. As I said in answer to the previous question, our country lobbied extremely hard to ensure that the mandate was extended for a further year and will do so again in the future precisely so that these concerns can be addressed.

Colombia

Jim Sheridan: What recent discussions he has had with the Colombian Government regarding human rights and peace talks in that country.

Hugo Swire: The Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and I met President Santos during his visit to London in June and discussed a range of subjects, including the peace process and its potential to improve respect for human rights. Officials from our embassy in Colombia regularly make representations to the Colombian Government on human rights cases.

Jim Sheridan: The Minister of State recently told the House he would make representations to the Colombian Government regarding the arrest of leading trade unionist Huber Ballesteros. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made, including a possible visit to Mr Ballesteros in prison, and what does he think the future holds for trade unionists and others in terms of human rights in Colombia?

Hugo Swire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are aware of the detention of Mr Ballesteros. He was detained on 25 August. Our ambassador to Colombia wrote to the Colombian prosecutor-general on 28 August highlighting our interest in the case and requesting information on the charges. Staff at our embassy in Bogota are seeking permission to visit Mr Ballesteros in prison.

Stephen Metcalfe: The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) does much to champion the cause of Colombian trade unions, but does the Minister agree that it is more important to protect British citizens from the flow of illegal drugs from Colombia, and will he therefore tell the House what discussions he has had with the Colombian narcotics team about how to stop this flow of illegal and damaging drugs?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think not, actually. That is a very important matter, but it does not directly relate to human rights or peace talks. The Minister of State requires no encouragement, and on this occasion I do not wish to offer him any.

Overseas British Risk Register

Ann McKechin: When he plans to issue guidance to UK businesses through the overseas business risk register on trade with illegal settlements.

Hugh Robertson: We will update our online guidance for citizens and businesses on overseas markets, including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in the coming weeks, in line with the UK action plan on business and human rights.

Ann McKechin: I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I ask him urgently to review the documentation on the UK Trade & Investment website’s “Doing Business in Israel” section, which, according to Oxfam, encourages British businesses to invest in settlements in the Jordan valley by giving details of Israeli grants available for settlements business?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, I will certainly look at the guidance the hon. Lady mentions. The UK Government’s policy on this is very clear: settlements are illegal and they are an obstacle to peace, but we work in concert with our EU partners in producing guidelines that affect this issue.

Topical Questions

Mr Speaker: May I remind Members to ask pithy questions and Ministers to provide pithy answers, because there is a lot of interest and I am keen to accommodate Members?

Stephen Gilbert: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: Today I am hosting the World Islamic Economic Forum. This is the first time it has ever been held outside an Islamic country and Asia, reflecting London’s growing position as a major centre for Islamic finance.

Stephen Gilbert: Prageeth Eknaligoda is a Sri Lankan political cartoonist who has disappeared. Both I and pupils at St Austell’s Penrice community college will be interested to learn what my right hon. Friend knows about his whereabouts and whether he will raise this matter with the Sri Lankan authorities.

Hugo Swire: We regret that Mr Eknaligoda’s whereabouts are still not known more than three years after his disappearance. We have made clear to the Government of Sri Lanka the need to take decisive action to guarantee press freedom, including by investigating attacks on the media and disappearances and ensuring those responsible are brought to justice. The forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo will be our opportunity to shine a spotlight on this and other matters.

Douglas Alexander: Last week, I had the great privilege of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi, following her discussions with Government Ministers. She impressed upon me the urgency of the international community seeking to put pressure on the Burmese Government to reform the constitution in Burma. I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would set out what steps the Government anticipate taking to achieve that goal.

William Hague: Aung San Suu Kyi was very clear about these things in all the meetings she had, including the one with EU Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg last Monday. These are issues that we have taken up for some time with the Government in Burma, including directly with President Thein Sein on his visit to the UK earlier this year. Of course, we are continuing to raise them, as there is an urgency about constitutional change ahead of elections in Burma in 2015. So we will continue to raise them over the coming weeks directly with Burmese Ministers.

Roger Williams: We have heard today about the strength of the trade relationship between this country and Israel. Will the Government use the influence that that relationship brings to make progress on peace, particularly in relation to the settlements?

Hugh Robertson: Yes, of course, we will. As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is now a moment of hope—or perhaps I should say opportunity—that has not been there for some years. I am visiting the region for the first time next week and will certainly do what the hon. Gentleman urges.

Wayne David: Which competences will the Government seek to repatriate from the European Union?

David Lidington: What the Government have already shown in their three and a half years in office is that they have been able to bring powers back to this country: through the reform of the fisheries policy, which has abolished the practice of discarding that the hon. Gentleman’s Government tried and failed to reform in their 13 years in office; in getting
	a cut on the budget for the European Union; and in getting us out of the bail-out mechanism to which his Government committed us. That is a fine track record on which to look forward with high hopes for the future.

Rehman Chishti: The UN envoy, Mr Brahimi, is in Syria today and he has said that President Assad can play a constructive role in the transition in Syria. The Friends of Syria group has said that President Assad can play no role in the transition, so what is the UK’s position on whether he can play any such role?

William Hague: It was agreed in Geneva last year that a transitional Government in Syria would have full executive authority, and that it would be formed from regime and opposition “by mutual consent”. That phrase is very important; I do not think anyone can envisage circumstances in which opposition groups in Syria would give their consent to President Assad being part of that transitional Government.

Louise Ellman: Rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza have resumed, and Hamas threatens to restart suicide attacks. Will the Minister condemn the statement from the leader of Hamas that the Palestinians should withdraw from peace talks and launch a third intifada? Does he believe that the Palestinian Authority are sufficiently strong and well motivated to resist that call?

William Hague: I believe that the Palestinian Authority are certainly well motivated—that is a good way to put it. I believe that President Abbas is a courageous man of peace, and he has taken many risks and overcome much opposition in order to get back into the peace process and into negotiations with Israel. I absolutely condemn any encouragement to him to do anything other than that, and Hamas for saying that that should cease. We want to see those negotiations continue over the coming weeks and bring success.

David Mowat: Much of the instability in various parts of the world is caused by volatile and high food prices, a driver of which is the conversion of agricultural land into biodiesel, a practice described by the United Nations last year as a crime against humanity. What discussions have the Government had with the EU to encourage it to drop its 6% target on sources which could and should be food?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right to identify this as an important issue. Our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change have the lead on it, and I will make sure that their attention is drawn to his comments. I assure him that they take the issue particularly seriously.

Jim Cunningham: What discussions is the Foreign Secretary having with European Governments, particularly the Italian Government, about the tragedy unfolding in the Mediterranean as a result of refugees drowning?

William Hague: Yes, we have already had discussions with the Italian Government. The Italian Foreign Minister, Emma Bonino, was here on Friday and that, of course, was one of the subjects we discussed. In addition, the Prime Minister has discussed it with his counterparts in the European Council. It is important that European countries work effectively together on this matter and, in particular, that we work to help Libya, for instance, to secure its land borders. The insecurity of those borders is causing a lot of the problem for the maritime borders of EU states.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr David Ruffley—not here.

Caroline Dinenage: Many of my constituents are concerned about human rights abuses not just in the north of Sri Lanka but in the east. They are also concerned that the visit by the Commonwealth Heads will somehow legitimise that desperate reality. Will the Secretary of State undertake to leave the Sri Lankan authorities in absolutely no doubt that that is not the case?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right. The authorities are in no doubt about our position as things stand, as I explained to the House earlier. They will be left in no doubt by me, the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), on our visit to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Graeme Morrice: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of an independent Scotland’s place in Europe and the world compared with the advantage that Scotland derives from being part of a strong United Kingdom?

William Hague: Scotland derives enormous benefit, of course, from being part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom benefits enormously from Scotland’s being part of it. It is important to understand that if Scotland left the United Kingdom, it would also be leaving the organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, including the European Union.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank the Minister for his answer to my earlier question. May I now encourage him to congratulate not just this House on issuing a yellow card to the Commission’s proposal for a European public prosecutor but the Parliaments of France, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Romania, Slovenia and Cyprus? Does that not show the value of national Parliament’s power to tell the Commission to stop interfering and is there not a case to go—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should seek an Adjournment debate—but it might take him some weeks to get it.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the deployment of the yellow card as regards the European public prosecutor’s office is the second time that the number of national Parliaments submitting reasoned opinions has passed the threshold
	set by the treaty that forces the Commission to reconsider its original proposal. I wish all strength to the arm of national Parliaments in continuing to use those powers to the full.

Joan Ruddock: I am sure that this House has every confidence in the Foreign Secretary to represent the Government at CHOGM and the Prime Minister should clearly make a gesture and stay away. When he is making representations, will the Foreign Secretary seek the signature of the Sri Lankan Government to the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict?

William Hague: I seek that all over the world. It is my declaration, which I proposed at the margins of the UN General Assembly, and I am pleased that, by the middle of this month, 134 countries had signed it. Sri Lanka is exactly the sort of country we want to add its signature to it, so I will press the Government hard on that subject at the margins of CHOGM.

David Heath: Is a judicial system that encompasses stoning for adultery, severance of limbs for theft and flogging for alcohol consumption compatible with membership of the Commonwealth and is it something that the Foreign Secretary intends to raise with the sultanate of Brunei at CHOGM?

Hugo Swire: We are aware of the announcement of the phased introduction of criminal sharia law in Brunei and are looking into what that means. I shall be raising the issue with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Brunei, Pehin Lim, in London tomorrow.

Barry Sheerman: Have Ministers considered using the large number of influential Russians who live in London in their efforts to persuade the Russian Government to take a more liberal line on human rights?

David Lidington: We are prepared to consider all appropriate opportunities to ensure that we influence the Russian authorities for the better on human rights. I would not rule out the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, although it depends a little on which individual we are talking about.

Karen Lumley: Democratic elections in the Maldives were suspended nearly two months ago. What are the Government doing to make sure that these elections take place?

William Hague: It is very important that these elections are now allowed to take place. The legal actions that have been taken to try to stop the elections and to stop the second round going ahead after a successful and well-regarded first round of elections have increasingly looked just like attempts to disrupt the elections and to prevent the people of the Maldives from being able to have their democratic say. The strong statement that I issued on this on 19 October has, I think, been noticed in the Maldives. We hope the authorities there will now allow an election to go ahead that will be able to determine freely and democratically the presidency of the Maldives.

Valerie Vaz: What representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Burmese Government on the recent violence in Kachin state, which makes constitutional reform that much more urgent?

William Hague: Again, this is one of the subjects that we discuss regularly with the Burmese Government and, indeed, that we discussed with Aung San Suu Kyi on her visit last week. Progress has been made, of course, in bringing ceasefires into effect in ethnic conflicts, but the conflict in Kachin state has been the most serious in recent times so it is always very high on the agenda for our discussions with Burmese Ministers.

Mark Pawsey: Small businesses produce the kind of niche products that are well received in export markets, but they often lack the expertise and confidence to sell abroad. What steps is the Department taking to assist and encourage smaller businesses in particular?

Hugo Swire: I think I am right in saying that since the formation of this coalition Government, we have had a net gain of more than 400,000 small businesses, which is a tremendous success. My hon. Friend is correct. We need to do more to encourage small businesses to export. It is incumbent on all of us in the House to encourage our local businesses to raise their game. With respect to UK Trade & Investment, the reconfiguration of the British chambers of commerce initiative is designed to help small businesses, but each of us has a part to play in making sure that our small and medium-sized enterprises grow into large export businesses, which are so important for the economy.

Rushanara Ali: Barclays bank made the decision to end banking facilities for money transfer companies such as Dahabshiil and that decision will devastate countries such as Somalia. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to speak up and explain what he will do to try to prevent the closure of this legitimate route of money transfer to a country that depends on it for its security and to achieve transformation there?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. She is right to make the point that remittances are extremely important,
	particularly as they relate to Somalia. But most Somali remittances are made through small scale businesses that operate in cash and do not have bank accounts. They will therefore be unaffected by a commercial decision by Barclays bank. However, the Government are taking the decision seriously. The Treasury, which is leading on this matter, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are working to find a solution, and DFID is developing a pilot project to help secure international remittance channels.

Paul Maynard: Everyone will have been appalled by the tragedy which occurred off Lampedusa recently. Many of those who died were Eritreans fleeing one of the most repressive states in Africa. What steps are the Government taking to try to improve governance in Eritrea to reduce the push factor?

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue, but it is not solely an Eritrean problem, although he is right to point out that Eritrea continues to violate its international obligations and domestic law and has taken no steps to improve its human rights record. It also needs to be said that poor governance, corruption and a lack of economic development are fundamental drivers for the sort of migration that we saw and the terrible tragedies. I can assure my hon. Friend that we in the Foreign Office will continue to work to try to improve all those aspects to limit the necessity for migration.

Paul Goggins: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the work of the chemical weapons inspectors in Syria, and will he say when he expects the destruction of precursor chemicals to begin?

William Hague: This work is going reasonably well so far. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons staff have had access to 21 of 23 sites that have been identified. The actual destruction of munitions and of production equipment for chemical munitions has been taking place. Based on the submission made by the Syrian regime on 27 October—just a couple of days ago—decisions now need to be made about the resources needed and the timetable for the destruction of all chemical stocks, including precursors. That programme will be put together by the middle of November.

Licensed Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles (Closed Circuit Television)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Richard Fuller: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the installation of closed circuit television in licensed hackney carriages and private hire vehicles; to establish a minimum standard for such installations; and for connected purposes.
	Like many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sceptical about the value of the pervasiveness of CCTV in our lives and in our communities, but I wish to explain to the House why I believe that its provision in private hire vehicles and taxis is warranted and justified. For too long our private hire and taxi drivers have been treated like second-class citizens. Indeed, they are an overlooked community when it comes to personal safety. Yet they are an essential part of our public transport system, for in many towns across the country, who is going to take people home in the evenings? It will be a private hire cab or a licensed taxi. However, the safety provided in those circumstances is below that provided in other forms of public transport. It is the most trusting of circumstances: one, two or three people in a single vehicle late at night, with nothing to provide any evidence if a crime is committed.
	The types of crime that are committed run the gamut, from theft to racial abuse and assault. Many of our taxi drivers are drawn from ethnic minorities. Racial abuse, wherever it happens, is unacceptable. In Doncaster, taxi drivers requested that the local council bring in CCTV because they were concerned about the incidence of racial abuse. They noted a significant decline in racial abuse following the introduction of CCTV. Theft is almost thought of as a cost of doing business. We should consider what it must be like for a taxi driver when two or three people they have driven home simply refuse to pay. What evidence does the driver have that a crime has been committed? What power does he or she have to stop those people perpetrating that crime? There is little ability to stop the crime and little evidence that it has happened. The number of assaults that occur in disputes between drivers and passengers is horrifying, and occasionally they lead to murder.
	Having CCTV in taxis is about providing safety not only for drivers but for passengers, because there are sometimes instances of passengers attacking each other in the back of taxis. In my conversations with the Metropolitan police, I was interested to hear that they regard the provision of CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles as helpful in cases of sexual assault or rape that occur after people have been taken by taxi to a place of residence.
	Those are some general examples, but I have been moved to seek to bring in this Bill by specific examples in my constituency. A year ago one of my constituents, Mehar Dhariwal, was murdered. His murder brought into sharp relief the dangers that men and women in our taxis can be under when they are put in situations of risk. I met his widow, Mrs Dhariwal, last weekend. Although her loss can never be made up for, her encouragement to me was to say, “Richard, it’s important
	that we bring in this measure so that other people do not have to go through the suffering that I and my family have gone through.”
	The dangers faced by taxi drivers were also brought into sharp relief when a friend of mine who works for 24-7 Cars was held at knife point between Bedford and Luton. He managed to escape only because he was smart enough to realise that there was a police car parked at a petrol station he was approaching. He rolled out of the taxi, sustaining injuries, and the taxi came to a halt. The two perpetrators of the crime got out and were chased by two police officers. One of those idiots threw a knife at the police officers and the other turned a gun on them, but the officers bravely dodged the knife and one of them knocked the gun away. I am pleased to say that our chief constable was prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure that those criminals faced the full force of justice.
	This Bill proposes to provide for secure and encrypted CCTV in taxi cabs. It is important from the point of view of privacy that the information is secure and encrypted. It should also be accessible by the police only in circumstances in which a crime is reported to have been committed. The system should be mandatory, because then the citizen would know that it was being used when they got into a taxi cab. If the take-up were voluntary rather than mandatory, people would not know exactly what type of safety provision was in use. Councils around the country have seen the value of introducing a mandatory system over a voluntary one.
	There is a question about whether CCTV should provide just video coverage or audio coverage as well. This issue was subject to an Information Commissioner review involving Southampton council earlier this year. The consequence was not to ban audio recording outright, but to say that it could be provided only in a panic situation—a short burst of audio at the particular point when a driver felt a crime was being committed. I believe that that is the correct approach.
	There are also issues with costs. The last thing I would wish as a result of this Bill is to place additional costs on drivers. We do not ask bus drivers to pay for the CCTV that protects them, and nor should we ask taxi drivers to pay for their own personal safety while they ply their trade. Southampton has built on its work with the Information Commissioner and has a very good approach to covering costs: the council covers the cost of the camera and the taxi drivers are responsible for the maintenance and installation of the system. That also allows the driver to recoup their costs through insurance reductions, because CCTV is able to look outside as well as inside the vehicle and can therefore be used as evidence in claims when crashes or whiplash are caused. In such circumstances, I believe that the costs that would fall on the drivers would be negligible at best.
	This Bill seeks to provide a level of security for our taxi drivers that is long overdue. Workers in other high-risk transport situations already benefit from it and I believe it would have a significant impact. A US study recently compared the effect of measures such as CCTV and barriers between the driver and passengers. It found that only one method contributed to a significant reduction in crimes against drivers, and that was CCTV.
	This Bill has many benefits, but to my mind the most important is that it will start to give respect to our taxi drivers and stop people treating them as second-class citizens.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Richard Fuller, Meg Hillier, Mr Adam Holloway, Siobhain McDonagh, Stephen McPartland and Priti Patel present the Bill.
	Richard Fuller accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 November, and to be printed (Bill 121).

Point of Order

Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Transport indicated that he intends to make a statement to the House on the fourth revised version of the justification for High Speed 2? I heard him say on the television this morning that the £50 billion was perfectly justified and that he was producing a report for Parliament. However, as far as I can make out, there has been no report to Parliament.

Mr Speaker: I have received no indication that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House on that matter. However, the House will be treating of these issues on Thursday. I expect that a significant number of Members will wish to contribute to that debate and I fancy that the right hon. Gentleman might be among them.

Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that there is anything further, but the right hon. Gentleman is an immensely senior Member and I must give him the benefit of the doubt.

Frank Dobson: The proceedings on Report are likely to be fairly specific to the amendments that are tabled, whereas what needs to be discussed is the new financial justification for the scheme. I suspect that it will be rather difficult to discuss that and to remain in order on Thursday.

Mr Speaker: I note the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I am advised that there is a written ministerial statement, although I readily recognise that that will not satisfy him because it does not afford an opportunity for oral questioning. I have got the point that he wishes to hear a spoken justification from a Minister, however senior, and to have the opportunity to question them on the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is in his place and seeks to catch my eye, he might find favour. I hope that that satisfies him for now.

Pensions Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
	That the Order of 17 June 2013 (Pensions Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at today’s sitting at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE

Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 4. 4.30 pm 
			 New clauses and new Schedules relating to state pension credit; New clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 1; new clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 2; new clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 3; remaining proceedings on Consideration. 6.00 pm 
		
	
	(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at today’s sitting at 7.00pm.—(Steve Webb.)

Pensions Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements

‘Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] permits the Secretary of State to make regulations—
	(a) restricting the charges that may be imposed on members of certain work-based pension schemes;
	(b) imposing requirements relating to administration or governance that must be satisfied in relation to certain work-based pension schemes.’.—(Steve Webb.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to Government new clause 1,line6 at end add—
	‘(2) In this section—
	(a) “charges”; and
	(b) “transaction costs”
	shall be defined in regulations by the Secretary of State.
	(3) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation, which must include the views of—
	(a) the Financial Conduct Authority; and
	(b) the Pensions Regulator.
	(4) With reference to paragraph (2)(a), any public consultation must consider the different elements which comprise charges and not just the annual management charge.
	(5) Such charges, together with any transaction costs incurred by the funds in which qualifying schemes are invested, shall be declared on an annual basis to the Pensions Regulator, which shall maintain a public register thereof.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations set the standards by which pension schemes must declare charges and transaction costs for the purposes of the register and for declaration to their members and their members’ employers.
	(7) The standards set out in regulations under subsection (6) shall be reviewed every three years.
	(8) The Secretary of State shall have power to make regulations ordering other disclosure arrangements on administration charges.
	(9) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.
	New clause 7—Railways pension scheme—
	‘(1) The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.
	(2) In Schedule 11 (Pensions), after paragraph 11 there is inserted—
	“Employers insolvency
	11A (1) This paragraph applies if an insolvency event occurs in relation to the employer or former employer of a protected person.
	(2) Where this paragraph applies the Secretary of State shall become liable to discharge any liabilities in respect of relevant pension rights, to the extent that they are not discharged by the trustees of a new scheme in which the employer was a participating employer.
	(3) For the purposes of this paragraph—
	(a) “insolvency event” has the meaning set out in section 121 of the Pensions Act 2004;
	(b) “relevant pension rights” means the relevant pension rights referred to in paragraph 6(3) above.
	11B The duty referred to in paragraph 11A also applies if an insolvency event has occurred in relation to the employer or former employer of a protected person on or after 1 October 1994.”.’.
	New clause 9—Fiduciary duty of independent trustees—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
	(a) require any pension scheme, which is not already overseen by independent trustees, to appoint a board of independent trustees; and
	(b) set out the powers and duties of a board appointed under paragraph (1)(a).
	(2) Regulations under this section—
	(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
	(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(3) The board of independent trustees shall have a fiduciary duty towards members of the scheme overseen by them.
	(4) The fiduciary duty set out in subsection (3) shall take precedence over any duty to—
	(a) the shareholders in, or
	(b) other owners of,
	the operators of the scheme.
	(5) In relation to any matters of member interest, decisions of the board of independent trustees shall be binding on the board of directors or other analogous management board of any undertaking operating a pension scheme.’.
	New clause 10—Promotion of good value in scheme size—
	‘(1) The fiduciary duty of pension scheme trustees shall include a duty to consider whether the scheme has sufficient scale to deliver good value for members.
	(2) Where trustees take the view that the scheme has insufficient scale, they must consider whether merger with another scheme would be in the members’ interests.
	(3) The Pensions Regulator shall have power to direct merger of pensions schemes where it would be in the interests of the members of each of the relevant schemes for merger to take place.
	(4) The Pensions Regulator shall exercise this power in accordance with a methodology on which it has publicly consulted and which has been agreed with the Secretary of State.
	(5) The methodology set out in subsection (4) shall be kept under regular review and revised when necessary, subject to further consultation and agreement from the Secretary of State.’.
	New clause 11—Decumulation—
	‘(1) Any qualifying money purchase scheme must direct its savers to an independent annuity brokerage service or offer such a brokerage service itself.
	(2) Pension schemes shall ensure that any brokerage service selected or provided meets best practice in terms of providing members with—
	(a) an assisted path through the annuity process;
	(b) ensuring access to most annuity providers; and
	(c) minimising costs.
	(3) The standards meeting best practice on decumulation shall be defined by the Pensions Regulator after public consultation.
	(4) The standards set out in subsection (3) shall be reviewed every three years and, if required, updated.’.
	New clause 12—Sustainability of private pensions: review of implications of climate change and natural resource constraints—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent review of the implications of climate change and natural resource constraints for the sustainability of private pensions.
	(2) In particular, the review must consider the implications for long-term investment outcomes for members of work-based pension schemes of potential—
	(a) systemic risks posed by high levels of exposure to fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive assets;
	(b) economic and physical impacts of climate change under various climate mitigation scenarios; and
	(c) constraints on the availability of non-renewable resources.
	(3) In subsection (2)(c), “non-renewable resources” includes food, water, land and energy resources.
	(4) A report of the review’s findings, including recommendations to government, must be laid before Parliament no later than 30 October 2014.
	(5) The government must lay before Parliament its response to the review’s recommendations no later than 30 January 2015.’.
	Government new schedule 1—‘Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements.
	Amendment 38,in clause 29, page15,line24, leave out from ‘scheme’ to end of line.
	Government amendments 5 to 10.
	Amendment 53,in clause 34, page18,line22, at end insert—
	‘(5) Regulations under this section shall not exempt entire classes of business or businesses, such as small and medium-sized businesses, from automatic enrolment.’.
	Government amendment 11.
	Amendment 54,in clause 42, page23,line7, at end add—
	‘“(czb) to promote, and to improve understanding of long-term and sustainable investment amongst work-based pension schemes,”.’.
	Amendment 39,in schedule 16, page84,line37, leave out from ‘of’ to ‘transfer’ in line 1 on page 85, and insert
	‘a transferable benefits scheme, the cash equivalent of the transferable benefits—
	‘(a) is transferred to a nominated’.
	Amendment 40,page85,line3, leave out ‘automatic transfer’ and insert ‘transferable benefits’.
	Amendment 41, page85,line8, leave out from ‘an’ to end of line 9, and insert
	‘a transferable benefits scheme, means a member of the scheme who is no longer having contributions made to their benefits.’.
	Amendment 42, page85,line22, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
	‘(5) In this Schedule “nominated transfer scheme” means—
	(a) a work-based pension scheme which is registered under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004 and is a money purchase scheme;
	(b) a scheme in which the qualifying member is a member, or that has been nominated by the member or the transferable benefits scheme for the purposes of transferring pots;
	(c) a pension scheme which meets quality standards as set out by the Secretary of State;
	(d) a pension scheme that meets any other requirements set out in regulations.’.
	Amendment 43, page85,line38, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 on page 87, and insert—
	‘Transferable benefits scheme to transfer to nominated transfer scheme
	2 (1) The regulations must require the trustees or managers of a transferable benefits scheme to establish an agreement with a nominated transfer scheme to make provision—
	(a) for the transfer of qualifying members’ benefits to the nominated transfer scheme; and
	(b) describing how and when steps are to be taken in order to effect the transfer.
	(2) The regulations may make provision for a protocol through which a transferable benefits scheme may establish an agreement with a nominated transfer scheme.
	(3) The regulations must ensure that where the duty to transfer qualifying members’ benefits to a nominated transfer scheme, has arisen, the member may opt out of the transfer or identify an alternative nominated transfer scheme to which the members’ benefits will be transferred.’.
	Amendment 44, page88,line25, at end insert—
	‘Nominated transfer schemes: quality requirements and administration charges
	10A (1) The regulations may impose requirements that must be satisfied by any nominated transfer scheme.
	(2) The requirements may in particular relate to—
	(a) the governance of the scheme;
	(b) the administration of the scheme; and
	(c) the certification of the scheme by the Regulator.
	(3) The regulations may make provision limiting or prohibiting any administration charge that may otherwise be imposed on a member of an automatic transfer scheme.
	(4) Regulations made because of sub-paragraph (3)—
	(a) may make provision for the manner of, and criteria for, determining whether an administration charge exceeds any limit or is prohibited; and
	(b) may provide for the determination to be made in accordance with guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(5) The requirements that may be imposed, and the charges that may be limited or prohibited, because of this paragraph need not relate to things done under the regulations.’.
	Amendment 45, page88,line27, leave out paragraphs 11 and 12.
	Government amendment 28.
	Amendment 55, page88,line38, at end insert—
	‘(c) the ability of the scheme to generate sustainable investment returns.’.
	Amendment 46, page89,line39, leave out ‘an automatic’ and insert ‘a nominated’.
	Amendment 47, page90,line1, leave out ‘current’.
	Amendment 48, page90,line2, after ‘member’, insert ‘in a nominated transfer scheme’.
	Amendment 49, page90,line3, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
	Government amendment 29.
	Amendment 50, page91, leave out line 11.
	Amendment 51, page91,line21, at end insert
	‘“nominated transfer scheme” has the meaning given by sub-paragraph 1(5);’.
	Amendment 52,page91, leave out lines 36 and 37.
	Government amendments 30, 31 and 12.

Steve Webb: This group of amendments contains a long list of disparate topics. To give the House a feel for what we are discussing, it includes an attempt to limit the scope of automatic enrolment, the transfer of small pension pots, short service refunds, the vexed issue of pension scheme charges, issues with governance and administration, the decumulation of pension pots, the specific issue of rail pensions and the pension protection fund compensation cap. I shall do my best to whizz
	through all those issues to minimise or obviate as far as is possible the need for me to return to the Dispatch Box on this group.
	I should start on a note of consensus. This part of the Bill deals with private pensions and I think that the House would agree that the process of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions is going exceptionally well. The process started a year ago. British industry has automatically enrolled about 1.7 million employees into workplace pensions. The rate of not opting out, or of staying in, has been far better than anybody predicted. Our survey evidence suggests that of the order of nine in 10 workers have chosen to remain in their workplace pensions. That is something that we should all welcome.
	The Bill is designed to improve that situation further and to deal with some unfinished business. Although the principle of automatic enrolment was legislated for in the previous Parliament, many issues were not dealt with. If those are not dealt with, it will undermine the success of automatic enrolment.
	Amendment 53 relates to the scope of automatic enrolment. Clause 34 gives the Government the power to exclude some people from the employer duty for automatic enrolment. I will give the House a flavour of the sorts of people that we might be talking about. In automatic enrolment, we have sought to strike a balance between setting out the rules at the start and giving employers and the industry certainty, and learning and listening and then changing the rules when we have got something wrong or when something needs to be refined or streamlined. We could have changed the rules and constantly tweaked things, or we could have said at the start, “These are the rules for the next five or six years until everybody’s in. Go and deal with it”, but we tried to strike a balance.
	As we have learned, the rules require employers to put a certain set of people into workplace pensions who may immediately opt out. For example, people with what is called enhanced or fixed tax protection status—high net wealth individuals—could face a tax surcharge if their pension pot exceeds the lifetime allowance. In general, such individuals will want to opt straight back out of the scheme, and their employers have said, “Why are you making us put these people into pension schemes? We all know they are going to opt out, and indeed they will be cross with us if they fail to opt out and later face a tax penalty.” At the moment, the Government do not have the power to enable firms not to enrol those people, so clause 34 provides the power to exempt them from enrolment.
	The second example concerns those who have already given notice. Someone may have given a month’s notice, but in the middle of that period the Government require the employer to put them in a pension scheme. As Members will understand, that is silly, because that person will probably opt out immediately. In any case, asking firms to enrol people who have already given notice does not do much for our relations with the CBI. Those are examples of where we have given employers a comprehensive, rigid legal duty that creates perverse outcomes. Clause 34 therefore allows employers to exempt certain categories of workers, and I have mentioned the sorts of examples it would cover.
	Amendment 53 says, “That’s all very well, but we don’t want you using the power to exempt categories of business such as small and medium-sized firms.” Leaving
	aside the fact that the amendment does not define an SME and it is not clear who would be covered, and that any amendment with “such as” suggests it is a bit vague to begin with, in responding to the spirit of the amendment I assure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and the House that the Government have no intention of using the power to exclude small and medium-sixed firms. That is not what this is about.
	Amendment 53 is otiose, because if we were the evil Government that the hon. Gentleman thinks we are and wanted to exclude small and medium-sized firms, we could do that anyway. The staging schedule is set in statutory instrument, subject to negative procedure. Therefore, if we wanted to exclude Britain’s small firms, we would have only to produce a statutory instrument that would say that small firms will be required to stage in 2099. That would not even be subject to a vote in the House. If the amendment seeks to stop the Government doing something that, in any case, we do not want to do, it would not work; we could still do it even if the amendment were successful. I hope I have reassured the House that amendment 53 is unnecessary, because we do not plan to do such a thing. Secondly, the amendment is not well drafted because it is not clear who it means. Thirdly, even if passed, it would not achieve the desired objective. An unnecessary, poorly drafted amendment that does not work should probably not be approved by the House.
	Amendments 38 to 52 concern what happens to small pension pots—an issue that was not addressed when the original legislation for automatic enrolment was drawn up. People change jobs perhaps 10 or 11 times in their working life, and they leave behind small pension pots. From the Australian experience, we know that can mean lots of people losing track of their pension pots and not engaging with pension saving because they have large numbers of small, silly pension pots all over the place.
	Australia is often mentioned as having one of the world’s best pension systems, and the Australians say that the one thing they wish they had addressed at the start was small dormant pension pots. The Australian Government have been going at this for longer than we have, and they estimate that they have 5 million lost pension accounts containing 20 billion Australian dollars. It is a serious issue. Clause 29 in schedule 16 sets out the Government’s response to the issue, which is what we call pot follows member. When someone moves from an auto-enrolment defined contribution pot to another one, their pot—as long as it is below a £10,000 threshold—automatically follows them unless they opt for that not to be the case.
	Interestingly, Nick Sherry, former Australian superannuation Minister and highly regarded in the field said of pot follows member:
	“It’s the only practical way. It’s better off”—
	because the money is in the worker’s last account—
	“which is why I think it’s the only practical solution”.
	We are delighted to have Nick Sherry’s support for our approach, as well as that of the Association of British Insurers. In the briefing sent to hon. Members the ABI welcomes the fact that the Bill includes provisions for the automatic transfer of small pension pots, which will lead to greater engagement and help people make savings
	decisions that are right for them and should lead to greater income in retirement. That is a welcome level of support for the proposition.
	The Opposition amendments suggest a different route and would mean that when someone changes job, the dormant pension pot is automatically transferred to a third-party pension scheme called an aggregator. As I understand it, there would not be just one aggregator but multiple aggregators, and I have multiple concerns about that. First, such a policy would clearly lead to greater fragmentation of pension saving—it must do. Let us imagine the simplest example in which someone moves from firm A to firm B, and works only for two firms in their working life. In our model, the small dormant pension pot follows them from firm A to firm B—or scheme A to scheme B—and they end up with a single pension pot. In the model suggested by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the dormant pension pot gets shunted off to some third-party provider with whom the employee has never engaged. They therefore have a pot with the current employer and with the third-party provider.
	We are trying not just to hoover up small pension pots but to get people engaged in pension saving. The problem with someone shunting their money off to a third-party provider, perhaps one they did not choose—there is not much detail in the hon. Gentleman’s model, but I do not think it involves a person choosing a third-party provider, although perhaps it does—is that they get a letter from a pension company they have never heard of saying, “Guess what, we’ve got your dormant pension pot.” It is not exactly a ransom note, but it might be the first that someone knows about it, and that will not lead them to become engaged.
	Under our model, someone’s pension savings are with their current employer. That is what they are interested in and where workplace pension engagement takes place. We therefore believe that our model provides better consolidation of pension saving and better engagement. Our model also saves on the cost of running pension schemes, compared with the model set out in the amendments. With a pot size limit of £10,000—obviously our published research relates to the £2,000 pot size limit on the aggregator model—which is the same across the two systems, we still estimate that the aggregate approach will achieve only half the cumulative administrative savings by 2050 of our pot follows member system. While aggregators are worth a look—we considered that option—it is clear that pot follows member is the best solution.
	There is an issue of what happens if money is automatically transferred from a “good” scheme to a “bad” scheme, and I accept that point. That is why we are regulating for scheme quality. It should not just be a worry that someone’s small pension pot gets auto-transferred to a bad scheme; it should be a worry that an entire work force have been auto-enrolled into a bad scheme. We should not have bad schemes and must deal with that. That is why we are tackling pension scheme quality, which includes a range of issues such as governance, investment, costs and charges. In a few moments I will have news for my hon. Friends and the House about what action we are taking on charges. For those reasons, we are not convinced by the multiple aggregator model, as it is catchily known. We believe that the someone changing job and their money
	following them is a simple, attractive notion that I commend to the House. I therefore ask the House to reject amendments 38 to 52.
	Amendments 5 to 10 are largely technical and deal with short service refunds. There is a category of money purchase pension schemes through which someone who has worked for a firm for under two years can have their money back when they leave. That is not in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve through our pension reforms. We want people, even those who put in relatively small amounts of pension savings, to accumulate that, build up what I call a big fat pot, and have a decent retirement. Short service refunds fly in the face of the view that even modest pension savings are worth having, and we therefore propose to eliminate them. The danger with the current legislation is that although someone joined to a pension scheme through a contract has 30 days to opt out, under the Bill they would be in the scheme on day one, and a day’s or month’s worth of pension contribution would be lodged. On purely pragmatic grounds we took that view that we ought to apply the same 30-day rule to short service refunds. Clause 32 abolishes short service refunds, and technical amendments 5 to 10 deliver a 30-day breathing space so that someone who is a member of a scheme for fewer than 30 days can receive a refund of what are essentially nominal contributions. I hope that amendments 5 to 10 will be welcomed across the House.
	One central issue in the debate on this group of amendments is pension scheme charges. The charge quoted on a pension scheme might be 1%, which sounds pretty innocent, because if 99p in the pound of a person’s money goes into their pension, the chances are that they will believe they are getting a good deal. However, pension scheme charges are compounded, so 1% of the fund is taken out in the first year, 1% of what is there is taken out in the second year, and so on. The Government estimate that the cumulative impact of charges can be very substantial, despite apparently innocuous, low-sounding charges.
	Some attempts have been made to tackle charges. The previous Government set a charge cap on stakeholder pensions at what now looks like an astonishingly high level. To remind the House, someone who takes out a stakeholder pension can be within the previous Government’s caps if they pay a charge of 1.5% for 10 years followed by 1% thereafter. That is acceptable and regarded as qualifying for the stakeholder stamp. The then Government said, “That’s great. As long as your pension scheme is charging you less than 1.5% for the first 10 years and 1% thereafter, the box is ticked and it is a good pension scheme.” I do not regard charges of 1.5% for 10 years and 1% for the rest as good value for money. This Government can and will do better.
	Why is 1% significant? Suppose you save, through your working life, £100 a month into a pension—I am not posing this question to you directly, Mr Speaker, but rhetorically—how much of your pension pot will have gone compared with the situation for a pension that has no charges? If the charge is 1% of £100 a month, the total charge for a year will be £12 or something, which does not sound like very much. However,
	it accumulates to more than £160,000—the difference between no charges and a 1% charge on savings of £100 a month is £160,000, which comes out of the pension pot. That is why I regard the charge caps that the previous Government sought to apply to stakeholder pensions—they applied no charge cap whatever for automatic enrolment—as alarmingly high and alarmingly gentle on the pensions industry.
	I believe this Government can do better than that. I am therefore pleased to say that tomorrow we will publish a consultation document on charges in automatic enrolment pension schemes. We have waited to do that because we wanted to see the Office of Fair Trading report, which was published in September. It looked at the market and found that the demand side of the workplace pensions market was one of the worst it had ever encountered—that is almost verbatim what it said.
	We do not regulate the price of baked beans because the market works. People shop around and buy a product they want, and they can choose a different one if they do not like it. The market for workplace pensions is not like that. The demand side of the model is very weak, because the people who pay the charges, the scheme members, are not the same as the people who choose the pension—the employer chooses the pension, but the member pays the charges. Even though the employee has an incentive to want a low-charge pension scheme, they are not the consumer. The employer is the consumer. Employers might be oblivious to charges, they might not care, or they might want to get rid of the hassle of choosing a pension scheme and therefore choose what they are offered. In that situation, the employee has a binary choice: stay in or get out. They cannot shop around or negotiate the charges down. It is a take-it-or-leave-it situation.
	It is worse. Not only are employees automatically enrolled, and therefore in by default, but their money is invested by default into a default fund. Overwhelmingly, the money of the people I am talking about ends up in default funds. They are double-defaulted—they are defaulted into pension saving and the money is defaulted into default investment funds. We absolutely must protect the consumer interests of those individuals. Therefore, the consultation that opens tomorrow will consider how far we can get with disclosure.
	Some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East suggest that we need tens of thousands of pension funds telling the pension regulator what their charges are. That would not be great. If I am a scheme member who has just been auto-enrolled or who has fairly passively remained in my scheme, I will be passively put into a default pension fund, but somebody somewhere—Brighton, for example—has a website with a charge figure on it. That is not great and does not really help. We need something better and tougher than that.
	We are therefore proposing a range of options on how far we can get with better disclosure and transparency, and on an absolute charge cap. I can tell the House that we will include in our consultation the option of a 0.75% charge cap on workplace pension schemes. That is a tougher charge cap than the Opposition have called for—they chose 1%. Their suggestion of a 1% cap was either based on an exhaustive investigation of the evidence and the data, or chosen because it was a nice round number. It was one or the other. The Government
	believe we should consider going further. We know that not enough people are saving for their retirement, and therefore that every penny they get into their pension has to turn into as much pension as possible. That is why we will consult on tough action on charges.

David Mowat: I thank the Minister very much for the announcement that he will consider a 0.75% cap in the consultation. Will he ensure that, in the consultation, there is clarity about what the 0.75% includes? As he is aware, there are an awful lot of different interpretations of costs by different people. That is part of the problem.

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right. The consultation document discusses what should be included in the charge cap. My instinct is to prefer a comprehensive definition of charges. Clearly, we do not want to cap annual management charges and find out that the industry has cunningly managed to get its money back by some other route or a disguised charge. We therefore discuss what should be included.
	My instinct is to go for a broad measure. There is an issue with transaction costs—we clearly want to know about them. Including transaction costs in the cap could lead to a slightly odd situation. Towards the end of the financial year, the fund and the trustees might believe that conducting a transaction is the right thing to do for the benefit of the pension fund. However, they might be unable to do that because the transaction costs would take them over the annual limit. We would be grateful for feedback on that and need to address those issues. One reason why we are having a consultation rather than laying down a definite answer is that we want insight on the fine detail, as my hon. Friend says. The basic principle is that we are looking at ensuring that 99p-plus of every £1 put into a pension goes into a pension. I am grateful for his comments.
	I should add that there has been a suite of activity on charges. To remind the House, we announced a ban on consultancy charges earlier in the year. Government new schedule 1 and Government new clause 1 give us the power to put a set of powers to cap and regulate charges and quality all in one place. That includes automatic enrolment schemes, qualifying schemes and closed schemes. Lots of people have lots of money tied up in closed schemes. Without those measures, we would not necessarily have the powers we need to regulate the charges they pay. In some ways, the charges that people in closed schemes are paying—they are often old, high-charge schemes—are worrying, because people are often not engaged with their pension saving in a closed pension scheme.
	Prompted by the OFT and working with the ABI, we are looking at legacy schemes—schemes introduced before 2001. The average charges in legacy schemes are 26% higher than charges in schemes sold after 2001. This is a full-frontal assault on pension scheme charges. We have banned consultancy charges; we are taking powers in the Bill to go further for auto-enrolment schemes; and we are looking at legacy schemes, charges and charge caps. We are taking effective action on issues that previous Governments have only dabbled with. That is why I urge my hon. Friends to support our new clause and our other proposals. They deliver, whereas the Opposition’s proposals mess about around the edges.
	On governance and administration—in the context of new clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12, and amendments 54 and 55—quality in pension saving is not only about charges. How well schemes are governed and administered is important. Interesting issues are raised by the Opposition’s proposals—obviously, they are flawed, but I acknowledge that they raise important issues. New clause 9 would impose a trust-based structure for all pension schemes, with independent trustees across the board. But interestingly, the Office of Fair Trading’s project leader on the workplace pensions report that has just been published was recently quoted as saying that although trusts feel like an intuitively better way of looking after people’s pensions, that
	“is largely dependent on the quality of the trustees.”
	Given the many pension schemes we have at the moment, including many defined-benefit schemes, a requirement for every scheme to have a particular sort of trustee could be a real challenge, especially for smaller DB schemes.
	Some of the Opposition’s suggestions may not be in the interests of members of schemes. I think the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East was at the recent conference of the National Association of Pension Funds, where he would have heard Fiona Reynolds, the chief of the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees—our friends the Australians again—commenting on his suggestion. She said:
	“Looking at the Australian system, we conducted a lot of research into whether there should be more independent trustees but in actual fact we found there was a greater alignment of interest within trust based schemes, and these schemes outperformed other schemes where independent directors were present.”
	In other words, these are interesting ideas, but they have been tried elsewhere and they are not a panacea or golden bullet.

Gregg McClymont: If that is the case for Australia—and I looked very closely at Ms Reynolds’ comments—why are the Australian Government giving the regulator and trustees a duty to consider how to improve the Australian pension system in the future?

Steve Webb: I do not see any incompatibility. The specific finding in Australia that independent trustees are not a magic bullet is not inconsistent with requiring schemes to ensure they are doing a good job. We will require schemes to meet quality standards that we will set out shortly.
	Our call for evidence earlier this year sought views on provider-level governance structures, and the OFT has announced that the Association of British Insurers will work on independent governance committees for the big insurance-based schemes. We welcome that development and will consider our own proposals in detail in our response to the call for evidence.
	The second set of governance issues relates to fiduciary duty and sustainability, addressed in new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and amendments 54 and 55. By happy coincidence, I took part in a conference this morning organised by ShareAction. The hon. Lady was on the attendance list—perhaps she was sitting at the back heckling, but I did not see her there. The conference was to launch ShareAction’s green light project, which aims to get
	pension funds to take sustainability and climate change seriously. I was delighted to take part in that conference and I am very supportive of that agenda.
	Clearly, the duty of trustees to their members is a cornerstone of trust-based governance, but we are looking at whether we have got the definition of fiduciary duty right. I welcome the fact that the Law Commission has consulted on this. Its interim conclusion is that fiduciaries should look at longer-term issues, and it is legitimate for them to look at environmental, social and governance—ESG—issues. The Government are therefore considering what the fiduciary duty on trustees means and how far we can deal with it through a better understanding of that work.
	One of the issues that came out of the conference this morning—I shall try not to deviate too much from the new clauses, Mr Speaker—was that the trustee toolkit that the Pensions Regulator provides could be amended to take account of some of these concerns. One of the challenges is to try to ensure that the trustees do their job properly and have a broad understanding of what it entails. As I say, the Law Commission’s interim conclusion was that trustees should—note “should”, not just “may”—consider
	“in general terms, whether their policy will be to take account of ESG factors in their decision-making”.
	I do not have any problem with the spirit of the new clause and amendments, but we are trying to consider this issue across Government. One of the funny things about being the pensions Minister is that if I go to a conference on pension funds and climate change, I have to get briefed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills because it does fiduciary stuff, and by the Department of Energy and Climate Change because it does climate change. Rather than amend pension legislation to deal with this little bit of the picture, we are trying to take an holistic view. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion knows, we have had the Kay review of fiduciary duty and long-termism, and we have the Law Commission review. We are trying to be as careful and as cross-departmental as we can, so we want to look at the whole investment chain and at how corporate governance, the law of the land and pensions will be affected, to make change in an integrated and connected way.

Caroline Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for his positive comments. I take the point that the pension aspect is not the full picture, but it is a big part of it. If we want to make quicker progress on this issue, can he advise where we should best table our next amendments?

Steve Webb: In someone else’s legislation—[Laughter.] Just between ourselves, I encourage the hon. Lady to keep up the pressure across Government, including at Business, Innovation and Skills questions, Energy and Climate Change questions and Work and Pensions questions. To be frank, this issue is not always at the top of the pension agenda, so I welcome the amendments for that reason. I am reluctant, however, to amend the Bill in a piecemeal fashion, when I hope that we can have a more overarching framework affecting company law, business regulation and the duties of trustees not
	only in pensions but beyond. I am sympathetic to what she is trying to achieve, but we want to do it in a systematic, cross-Government way rather than dealing with just a bit of the issue. I look forward to hearing what she has to say, but I hope that she will withdraw new clause 12.
	Scale is important. I do not think anyone doubts that, on average, bigger schemes produce better outcomes than smaller schemes, in the sense that, typically, bigger schemes have lower costs; they have the potential to diversify and pool risk; they have access to investment vehicles that smaller schemes perhaps do not; they have access to better quality investment advice; and they have more experienced trustees. We can see why, on average, a big scheme will probably do better than a small scheme. Just as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is searching for golden bullets on independent trustees—

Tom Blenkinsop: Silver bullets.

Steve Webb: Apparently he is searching for silver bullets. In any case, we are already seeing consolidation. To give the House a sense of scale, let us consider small and medium occupational defined-contribution schemes for between 12 and 1,000 members. The number of such schemes fell by more than a third in three years—a dramatic fall—from 3,300 to 2,110. The number of micro-schemes, with between two and 11 members, fell by a fifth over the same period, from some 45,000 to 36,000. In a sense, the Opposition amendments seek to force the pace on scale, but it is already happening quite quickly. That is a welcome development, and once we implement our measures on scheme quality—which, subject to consultation, may include tough action on charges—there will be a seismic effect on the pensions industry.
	If a scheme cannot be used for auto-enrolment unless it delivers seriously low charges, many small, sub-scale schemes will fall by the wayside. The trends are already in that direction, and the measures we shall implement will substantively accelerate that. Rather than presume that scale is the right answer, we have to regulate the quality. If a small scheme can demonstrate that it is, for example, tailored to the characteristics of its membership and is delivering for them, great.
	We do not want to kill good-quality small pension schemes, which is what the Opposition’s slightly bureaucratic amendment could do. Instead, we will say, “This is what we think good looks like. If you, as a big or small scheme, can deliver that, we will not tell you what to do. We will set parameters for what good looks like and you have to deliver.” Consolidation is already happening, and the quality requirements we are putting in place will deliver the outcomes that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East wants.
	Moving on—I apologise for the jargon—to decumulation, or “turning pension pots into retirement income,” as I think I am required to call it, new clause 11 suggests that it should be a requirement on schemes to feed in an annuity broker at the end. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East touches on an important issue, albeit again in an overly rigid way. Getting pension pots into a good profile of retirement income is crucial, which is why we at the Department for Work and Pensions are working
	with our colleagues at the Treasury on annuities and decumulation. Decumulation is about more than annuities. That is not a snappy soundbite, but in other words, turning a pension pot into a retirement income has to be about the whole process of retirement, not just a single event on a single day that fixes one’s retirement income for perhaps 30 years.
	The danger with the rigidity of new clause 11 is that it presumes a backward-looking annuity model. Annuities in their current form were designed for a world where people lived for 10 years with pensions and then died. We now have a world where people might annuitise in their early 60s, or want to stop contributing to their pension pot in their early 60s, and live into their 90s. There are serious questions about the suitability of annuities for everybody. For example, people with big pension pots might want to look at a mixture of draw-down. They might want to look at alternatives, deferral or a range of options. It would be a backward step to hardwire into primary legislation that the only good thing that can be done with a pension is to annuitise through this particular model. We should give people new options at decumulation, not hardwire them into the annuity model. Of course, even an annuity broker may not necessarily guarantee that someone will get, for example, an impaired life annuity or enhanced annuity for disability or low life expectancy.
	There is a lot that needs looking at in this section of the market. The initiatives that the industry has already taken—for example, the ABI code that came into practice earlier this year—are welcome, but we need to go further. We need a creative approach to turning pension pots into pension income, not a single product hardwired into a primary legislation model. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I believe that the annuity market is in need of further reform, but hardwiring into primary legislation does not seem to us to be the way to go.
	The House will be pleased to know that there are two final sections left, both of which are brief. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who does not appear to be in his place, tabled new clause 7, on rail pensions. The new clause relates to whether the Government should underwrite the shortfalls in the pension funds of employees who worked for the nationalised rail industry, which was then privatised, and where some companies, such as Jarvis Facilities, Relayfast and Fastline, went to the wall. We sympathise with any worker whose firm goes to the wall, but I say to the hon. Gentleman in absentia that the notion of protected persons in this case was simply that the terms of the pension scheme of the private employer would be as good as in the public sector. It was never a guarantee against the insolvency of the sponsoring employer. All private sector employees are covered by the Pension Protection Fund, provided that their firm pays the PPF levy. That is how these workers will get all or most, depending on their circumstances, of the pensions they were expecting. It would be wrong to give special treatment to that group when many other people work for firms that went to the wall and will not get that treatment.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that to enable privatisations to go ahead—we are not just talking about the railways; the electricity sector and the miners were affected in similar ways—promises were made that people’s pensions
	would not suffer any detriment as a result of privatisation? Our experience is that privatised companies go bust more often than others. Surely we are reneging on those promises?

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, new clause 7 makes a specific suggestion regarding a private sector employer going to the wall. The promise was never, “You’ll get absolutely everything, even if your firm goes bankrupt;” it was that the terms of the pension would be as good as in the public sector. Clearly, in this case people are working for a private sector firm and could, if they wish, transfer their pension rights to somewhere else. They chose to keep them with the sponsoring employer.
	Bear in mind that the money to pay for any shortfall in those pensions will come from the general taxpayer. Somebody is paying for that shortfall and many general taxpayers have no pension provision at all. If a private company knows that the pension fund is completely insured by the Government, that may influence its behaviour in a way we would not want. If feels unfair to say, “If your private employer used to be nationalised not only do you still have access to a very good pension scheme, but it is absolutely protected, whereas if you worked for any other private firm you are not protected.” I can understand why the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, given his trade union links, supports the railway workers—that is fair enough—but it seems like special pleading for that industry and I think there are many others who might make the same argument.

David Mowat: I am sorry to take my hon. Friend back to annuities, but I have been reflecting on his remarks. I agree with the need for us to be more creative in that interface as annuities are taken out, and he is right to say that the annuity broker is overly prescriptive. However, it is also true, as I think he said, that there are market abuses in the annuity system. Is there any more we can do with the consultation to look at the transition from pension fund to annuity and ensure that, for example, the Association of British Insurers code of conduct is more rigorously applied than it has been? It has not been very successful up till now.

Steve Webb: Although the ABI code, for example, no longer requires the providers to send the application form with the wake-up letter, I gather the early evidence is that it has not substantially changed the proportion of people who shop around and then move to a new provider. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a big agenda on decumulation—I apologise again for the word. It is not just about annuities. The new clause is too narrow and too prescriptive, but I assure my hon. Friend that we do not regard decumulation as a job done—on the contrary.

Katy Clark: I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are in difficulties because of the current regime. The Minister clearly accepts that there is a need for change. When will he come forward with proposals? He has been in post for a number of years and is clearly on top of his brief. We need the Government to act. When will they do so?

Steve Webb: My particular responsibility is automatic enrolment. We are about to put 10 million people into mainly defined-contribution pensions, the vast majority of whom, all things being equal, will then buy an
	annuity at the end. For understandable reasons, our focus in the past few years has been to get the infrastructure in place to get those 10 million people into pension saving and building up pension pots. Then, when they have a pension pot, we will ensure that they receive good value at the other end. There will be a set of people who will be auto-enrolled today and will retire tomorrow, but they are a minority. We need to get to grips with this issue. Annuity policy is led by our colleagues in the Treasury, which is why we are working closely with them. We hope to make further announcements soon.
	Government amendment 31 relates to the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap. In Committee, we amended the Bill so that workers entering the PPF would have a more generous cap if they had been long-serving employees. The amendment applies the same provisions to people who are already in the PPF. We will not go back years and increase pensions retrospectively, but once the Bill and secondary legislation is passed we will increase their pensions going forward in line with the provisions we have already made for new employees going into the PPF.

Anne Begg: Will the Minister explain what the position will be with regard to the cap for those who are in the financial assistance scheme and are not yet in the PPF?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. As she knows, the PPF scheme is funded by the PPF levy, and the financial assistance scheme is funded directly by the taxpayer. I think the FAS will be moving next year to the Department’s annually managed expenditure budget, so we will then have to find taxpayers’ money to make a parallel change to the FAS. We are continuing to reflect on whether we should do so. No final decision has been made, but I understand the case for some matching change.
	To conclude, the change to the compensation cap will mean that relatively small numbers of people—who, having worked for their firm all their life, should have got a good pension, but on whom the cap was biting particularly harshly—will now get a fairer pension, which has been widely welcomed by those affected.
	In summary, this section of the Bill deals with making automatic enrolment and private pensions work. Automatic enrolment has been a great success so far, but there have always been a lot more aspects to sort out, small pension pots being one in particular, scheme quality another. I am delighted to say, therefore, that this is the week we finally tackle the scourge of excessive pension charges, and I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Gregg McClymont: I have listened closely to the Minister. When one listens to him, particularly on pension charges, one has to listen very closely, because—how shall I put this politely?—there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. I will analyse the extent to which there remains a gap. In one sense, he has caught up with the questions that need to be asked about
	pension charges, but from the detail—or lack of detail—in his announcements, it seems we are still a long way from getting answers.
	On other matters first, however, the Minister says that auto-enrolment is going “exceptionally well”. I think that that is accurate, but I am sure he would agree that we have to be cautious, given that it is very large employers that have enrolled and that the percentage of savers’ income going into the new pension schemes is very small—in many cases, it is hard to notice. We welcome the developments, however, and pay tribute to him for taking forward the previous Labour Government’s auto-enrolment scheme; there is consensus, I think, on both sides of the House that auto-enrolment has to work effectively. It is crucial that every single one of the 10 million people being auto-enrolled between 2012 and 2017 can be sure of getting value for money from that pension scheme. The necessity of value for money for all auto-enrolment schemes is what drives my amendments.
	I wish to say a little about why that matters so much and how the Minister’s wind-up of the state pension interacts crucially with auto-enrolment. Essentially, he has gone for a hard and fast wind-up of the second state pension. No doubt, he will justify that move, and there are reasons to think it is sensible, but if we are to have a quick wind-up of the second state pension and a fast move to a flat-rate state pension, the biggest losers from that switch—this might be defensible, because there are always winners and losers—are likely to be lower-paid workers in the private sector who did well out of the redistribution accrual mechanism in the second state pension. If someone was low paid in the private sector, they accrued in a way that brought them closer to those on higher incomes. In many cases, therefore, the same people now being auto-enrolled will be the same people losing out from the hard and fast wind-up of the second state pension, or losing out in the longer term. That makes getting auto-enrolment right all the more important. The first thing he should have done when he took office—I know he will have an enormous in-tray—was work out how to ensure that every one of the 10 million people enrolled got value for money. That is the context of this debate.
	The Minister says that the Bill will further improve the situation, so let me pursue some of his comments and then turn to Labour’s vision for private pensions. Amendments 5 to 10 to clause 32, on short service refunds, are more or less uncontroversial. On clause 34 and exemptions from auto-enrolment, he referred to our amendment 53 and said that I saw this as an “evil Government”.

David Anderson: Hear, hear!

Gregg McClymont: That is a lesson in not posing a rhetorical question. Whatever my hon. Friend believes, I do not see this as an evil Government—in particular, no one doubts the Minister’s good intentions—but our amendment must be understood in the context of the Beecroft report.
	As you will remember, Mr Speaker, Adrian Beecroft is a Tory donor who has produced a report in the last 18 months arguing that red tape and bureaucracy on small businesses are far too heavy and that micro-employers should be removed from auto-enrolment. I know the Minister does not support that and said the Government had no intention of doing it—no one is suggesting he
	would do such an awful thing—but he will not be there for eternity. Given his recent comments about God being a liberal, perhaps he does intend to be around for eternity, but for those of us of a more sceptical temper, I think we can say he will not be around for ever, so it would be sensible to constrain a future Government, or even this Government—anything could happen—who might be under pressure from the Beecrofts of this world, in a way that is consonant with the best objectives of public policy.
	The Minister said that amendment 53 did not even define a small and medium-sized enterprise, but he will know that the Companies Act 2006 clearly defines an SME as an enterprise with 50 or fewer employees. That is a common definition of an SME. The broader point, however, is exactly the one I have already expressed: we are trying to do him a favour by protecting him from those within the coalition Government who take a less enlightened view of the benefits of auto-enrolment. We tabled the amendment in that spirit.
	On clause 29 and the debate around schedule 16, the Minister raised the Australian example. I was at the National Association of Pension Funds last week, and I have even watched him in the video—I was hoping he would entertain us with the song from “Les Misérables”, but I will come to that when I deal with costs and charges. He said that Australia is doing pot follows member—the inference is that I often point to the benefits of the Australian system—but that is not surprising, because Australia has several hundred schemes, whereas we have 200,000, and that is not including personal private pensions. To compare a system so scaled with our system is to let one’s a priori views of the world get in advance of the evidence, or to put it more simply: he is comparing apples and pears. Australia has several hundred pension schemes; we have 200,000, and that is a fundamental problem with comparing our system. Australia is in a much better place in terms of scale.
	The Minister says that pot follows member will be simple and effective and that we will regulate for quality, by which he means there will be minimum standards—or at least he tells us there will be minimum standards, but, guess what, that is also currently part of a consultation. There is a broader theme to which I shall return; when the Minister feels under pressure from the Labour agenda on private pensions, he calls for consultation. He says that this and that will happen but when we study the detail, we see that what he has called for is a consultation. That is not the same as decisive action.
	On pot follows member, the problem is that the UK has a fragmented pensions system; we have 200,000 pension schemes. We have—to put it in a simple fashion—great variations in quality. The Minister is being asked repeatedly by the pensions world how pot follows member will work in those circumstances. It is again worth listening closely to what he says, because he has not yet explained how it will work. He has set out his plan and objective to get to pot follows member but not how the mechanism will work. One of the reasons for that is that it is very difficult to do. To go back to the Australian point, pot follows member would be a sensible approach if we started from a very different place, but we do not. We start from a very fragmented private pensions system with a massive variation in quality.
	On costs and charges, the Minister does not actually know what is going on in the pensions world. We had a very interesting conversation, or debate on this in
	Committee. In arguing a point with me, he pointed to DWP evidence. It turned out that the way in which he quoted that evidence was not appropriate, but my point is not to criticise him for making a mistake, which does happen; it is much broader. The DWP is forced to take surveys of employers to try to find out what pension providers are charging them. The Minister talks about evidence. Would not a much more effective way to approach things be to have the costs and charges laid out for everyone to see in the first place? Why has he not got on with ensuring that costs and charges are disclosed? Instead, the DWP has to take surveys of employers who, in many cases—as his own survey evidenced—are not aware of what they are buying in terms of a pension scheme.
	That brings us to the broader issue of who buys pensions. The Minister wants to move to pot follows member and says that there will be quality criteria; these will be minimum quality criteria. But, as things stand, he could not explain to the House all the costs and charges that exist in a pension scheme. Neither the Government nor the regulator gathers that evidence. That is a fundamental point about the pensions market today.
	Similarities are often drawn between energy and pensions. One way in which they are similar is that the vertical integration of pension providers—the same as with energy companies—means that it is very hard to crack where the costs and charges lie. I put that point on the table. The Minister wants to move to pot follows member but has not set out in detail the mechanism and the IT by which he would do this. More widely, he is not able to say at this stage what the costs and charges are in pension schemes. So how can he be sure that no one will move from a superior to an inferior scheme? He will say, and has said, that he will ensure that this happens. Again, I do not doubt his good intentions, but he has not so far delivered on costs and charges. More widely, if he does deliver—as I am sure he has every intention of doing—the amount of regulation that it will take to make a pot follows member pension automatic transfer system work is enormous. That is why so many stakeholders in pensions do not think it is a feasible way to proceed. The Minister said that the Association of British Insurers supports it. That is hardly surprising, because this is a system that will have the least detriment to the ABI’s members.
	1.45pm
	The Minister feels that he is now catching up with the pension charges debate; that is evident from his language and from the extent to which he talks about the Labour agenda, which is quite striking for the Report stage of a Bill. But he is still caught in the mindset of “If only I can get the industry round the table, it will deliver.” There is no evidence of delivery so far and no evidence therefore that that will happen. The reason that there is no evidence relates to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his powerful 2013 conference speech, which still reverberates around British politics. He asked, rightly, why would one expect an industry to take the decisions necessary to reform a market when it is not in its interests to do so. Why, indeed? I say to the Minister that, on pot follows member, he has to look beyond the ABI’s interests and look to the interests of the wider pensions community and of the most important people, savers.
	The Minister mentioned the National Association of Pension Funds conference, where he mentioned pot follows member. I am sure that he got a very warm reception, because the national association is very clear not only that pot follows member is not the best way to proceed, but that there is a serious possibility of significant consumer detriment, which, in everyday language, means rip-offs. The national association, which the Minister so eloquently addressed the other week, is very clear on that. Not only is the association clear that we should have no truck with pot follows member, but it supports—the House will be surprised to learn—aggregators.
	The Minister sets out my approach to aggregators as being, “Labour wants several aggregators, but how would they work?” He said that aggregators stop individuals engaging with their pension, or make that engagement impossible. He knows very well that the whole logic of auto-enrolment, which Labour began and which he has followed through, is that we have to use the power of inertia in pensions, because all the evidence is that many people will find it difficult to engage with pensions whatever the circumstances, given their complexity. Also, as he must be all too aware, auto-enrolment involves employers buying pensions, not the saver.
	A criticism that I would make more widely of the Minister is that he approaches the pensions market as if it were a functioning market; functioning in the sense that we can and do have a consumer who is engaged, informed and sovereign, and a seller. The Minister knows that that is not the basis on which auto-enrolment proceeds because it is the employer who buys the pension. In other spheres, he has shown that he is fully aware that there is a big problem in the pensions market, which develops from the fact that the saver in many cases cannot be the sovereign—the person who makes the decisions—first, because the employer buys the pension and, secondly, because the pensions are so complex and their annual statements so opaque.
	In those circumstances and with the Minister being aware of that, to claim that the aggregators should be excluded and rejected on the basis that they do not allow consumer engagement is a bit of a straw man. Let me say a little about why I think aggregators are so important. This relates to my other new clauses and I should iterate at this stage that these new clauses must, if we are to develop a serious policy to improve auto-enrolment outcomes, go together. For example, the Minister talked about trustees and said that the OFT says that the key is the quality of the trustees. He is of course right. My view, and that of the Labour party, is that trustees, in scaling up the pensions system, and aggregators go together to try to make a significant difference to the 10 million people being automatically enrolled in pensions.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I recognise that the Minister is sincere in his intention to improve pensions but, in relation to costs and charges, does my hon. Friend think that the inertia might be a result of the Government not wanting to challenge the vested interests of the big pension providers in order to stand up for ordinary, hard-working people?

Gregg McClymont: I thank my hon. Friend for her shrewd intervention.
	The Minister has been slow to understand the depth of the problems in the pensions market, and the House does not have to take my word for that. Earlier this week, I wrote to the Conservative MPs in the 40 most marginal Conservative seats, who have recently published a manifesto-cum-policy document. The language therein is—how shall I put this?—tougher on the private pensions market even than mine. The document, “40 Policy Ideas from the 40”, describes it as a failed market. It also states:
	“Pension providers still refuse to clearly identify hidden charges such as churn and related fees…91% of retirees buy their pension annuity from their fund manager without checking other market options…the problem is that the private pensions market in the UK is a failed industry with higher charges than in any other country.”
	That was not written by the Labour party. It was written by the Conservative MPs in the 40 most marginal constituencies. It seems a bit odd that they should take a tougher line on the pensions market than the Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister.
	The way to explain that conundrum—I will not call it a paradox—is to say that anyone who believes in markets and thinks that they should work properly will support Labour’s proposals on reforming the private pensions industry. We want to reform it to ensure that the 10 million new savers going into automatically enrolled pensions get a fair deal. This pertains in particular to clause 29 and schedule 16, and the amendments thereto. It comes down to whether we believe that the pensions market is ready and able to proceed with pot follows member, given its fragmentation. The evidence shows that it clearly is not. Again, Members need not take my word for that. The National Association of Pension Funds has made it clear that we need to move to an aggregator system.
	Given that the Minister was kind enough to spend a considerable period of time talking about the Labour amendments, I will do the same. I want to say a little about why aggregators are important. When the Minister addressed the NAPF, he gave a lucid, walk-around-the-stage performance that I enjoyed very much. He referred to two songs from “Les Misérables”. It would be unfair of me to sing either of those songs to him now. I have to confess that I am not a musicals man, although I suspect that the Minister might be a man for musicals—

Steve Webb: indicated assent.

Gregg McClymont: It seems that he is, and that is fair enough. I myself am not. Musicals are not my thing. He quoted from the innkeeper’s song, which I am certainly not going to sing. For one thing, I do not know the words. He used the song as a basis to talk about 2% here, 3% there and charges everywhere, and presented that as the problem in the UK pensions market. That is very different from what he was saying not long ago. It is just over a year since he accused Labour of scaremongering about pension charges, but he has moved a long way since then—rhetorically, if not perhaps substantially. He talked about that ditty and made it clear that there was a problem, but he still does not grasp the fact that pot follows member is impossible because of the fragmentation in the pensions market.
	Labour’s new clauses would enable the restructuring of the UK pensions market so that savers’ interests would be appropriately represented. The Minister referred
	to our new clause 9, which deals with trustees, and he quoted the OFT’s view that the trustees would have to be good ones. He also quoted someone from Australia who is over here at the moment, who had said that in some cases trustees were not the answer.
	Our proposals involve having trustees in every scheme, the scaling up of the UK pensions industry to reduce the fragmentation born of 200,000 different schemes—it is the most fragmented private pension system in the world—and the reform of the annuities market. Our amendment (a) to new clause 1 proposes that all costs and charges should be disclosed. Those measures need to be taken together as a package, as a Labour Government would do, and they would provide a starting point for tackling the fundamental problem in the UK pensions industry.
	Our proposals would deal with the first problem, the system’s fragmentation. Secondly, they would deal with the problem that, as history tells us, pension savers are not the same engaged, informed consumers as those who buy tins of beans. The Minister seems to have undergone a damascene conversion on the merits and demerits of comparing the pensions market to the tin of beans market, and I will come back to that point. Savers are not informed and engaged in that way.
	Buying a pension is not like buying a tin of beans. The consumer does not exert the same pressure. Someone buying a tin of beans might be given a choice of five different kinds. With pensions, such a choice would not be available to the saver anyway, because the employer buys the product. But let us use the Minister’s metaphor and compare the pensions market with the tin of beans market. First, if there were a pensions market in a supermarket, the saver would not choose the pension themselves; their employer would do so. That would be an odd arrangement in the tin of beans market. Secondly, the buyer of beans can taste the various kinds, from the cheaper ones to the more expensive, and come to a judgment based on taste relative to cost. It would be difficult for them to make a similar comparison with pensions; historically, it has never happened. Thirdly, I return to the point that it is the employer who makes the purchase of a pension.
	The Minister has done something significant in the state pension sphere. He and I have been exchanging views across the Dispatch Box for almost two years now, and I say to him gently that he is still approaching the private pensions market on the basis that it has the ability to function like other markets, including the market for beans, even though, as he looks at it more closely, he can see that there are big problems. It cannot function like that. If we are to make it work properly, we have to ensure that the people acting in the pension saver’s interests are muscled, scaled and resourced.
	That is what our new clauses would achieve. They would enable the scaling up of the pensions system, so that schemes would be able to get an effective deal from providers. Let us be clear: the providers in the pensions market have scale. In that sense, it is a bit like the energy market. They are large-scale, efficient organisations. It is the people saving into pensions who do not have scale, and that is because there are 200,000 pension schemes. They do not have the necessary representation because the smaller employers, in particular, who are auto-enrolling their employees are not pension experts. I know that the Minister is aware of those facts—we have discussed them a number of times—and I urge him
	to think about how all that relates to restructuring the private pensions system so that it takes cognisance of that reality. It is in that area that he is not taking on what the Opposition are saying.
	We are clear that we need to move to an aggregator system, because otherwise pot follows member will not work and because if we enable the creation of aggregators, we have a chance to bring down charges in the auto-enrolment market. We know that there are millions of stranded pension pots, and the Minister rightly and repeatedly talks about them. How do we use the stranded pots issue to generate some change in the interests of pension savers, particularly the 10 million new savers automatically being enrolled in pensions for the first time? How do we do that? That is what our new clauses wink towards.
	One way of doing that is to use the power of the stranded pots as a lure and say to providers, “If you want access to the new market and to the billions of pounds locked in stranded pots, you can do so as long as you meet quality, costs and charges standards as set down by the Government and the regulator.” We could say to pension providers in the AE market, “Yes, you can be approved as an automatic transfer scheme aggregator, but only if you charge 50 basis points, and fully disclose your transaction costs,” thus meeting the criteria of the Labour new clauses dealing with independent trustees and other requirements. That shows how to use the stranded pots in the interests of the 10 million people who are being enrolled into these pensions for the first time. The ABI does not agree with that, and it is faithful to its position as an important industry interest, but it represents big pension companies, whereas I think the job of this House is to represent pension savers. That sets out the rationale for our amendments and new clauses.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, but what he seems to be saying is that if I have a small amount of money, I can have a 50 basis points pension fund, but his proposal for the charge cap for active members is 100 basis points or 1%. If I have a lot of money in pensions, I have to pay 1%, but if I go off to an aggregator, it is 0.5%. Why is that a good deal?

Gregg McClymont: I thank the Minister for that thoughtful intervention. I am coming on to the issue of the charge cap and the rate at which it will be set, so I shall take up the point when I discuss our amendment (a) to new clause 1. He refers to small pots, but that takes us into territory we have previously discussed about getting aggregators to take them on. Why does he believe that only small pots that are stranded should automatically be transferred? My view is that all stranded pots should be liable for automatic transfer. I am grateful for his intervention, because it reminds me of something I intended to say. The Government’s position on the pot follows member system appears to be supported only by the Government, the Minister and the ABI. First, the only pots liable for automatic transfer will be those for less than £10,000, and secondly no pots that are stranded before the date on which the legislation takes effect will count as stranded pots. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. I will give way to him if I
	am wrong on that point. He does not want to intervene, so I shall continue on the basis that what I am saying is correct.
	This is an important issue, because I am building a case that the Minister does not realise how substantial the problems in the private pensions market are. He continues to think it can be treated like better functioning or well functioning dynamic markets. Actually, the market is more like the one in energy. I say that because when, under the Minister’s leadership, the Department for Work and Pensions looked at how to consolidate pots, it gave as a reason against aggregators the fact that they would disrupt the current market structure.
	The Minister talks about new clause 1 and the need to take very strong action. Implicit but also explicit in what he says is that there are really serious problems with this market. If that was not explicit in what he said today, it was certainly explicit in his “Les Miserables” ditty at the NAPF. He knows about these problems, and he knows that we need significant change. We are going to be in a position, however, whereby all currently stranded pots will continue to be stranded.The Minister is shaking his head again. Does he want to tell me that I am wrong? I am happy to accept it if I am wrong, but on the basis of our Committee debates, I do not think that I am. Am I wrong? The Minister will not stand up to say so, so I shall assume that I am not and that he wants to keep the currently stranded pots still stranded and will not take action to deal with the problem. He also sets a £10,000 limit. Why? The answer is that he continues to be unprepared to stand up to the vested interests in the pensions market.
	The Minister said several times that the ABI is doing this, and the ABI is doing that. That is welcome; we like to see the industry engaged. However, a time must come—and it is now—when the Government must get on and make the changes necessary to reform the pensions system. I put that on the record, and if he wishes to correct me, he can. As I say, currently stranded pots will not be encompassed by clause 29 and schedule 16, and no pot above £10,000 will be considered to be a pot eligible for automatic transfer. I think that says something significant—that he does not understand the necessity for significant change in this market.
	It is not just me referring to private pensions as a failed industry. As I said, the group of 40 Tory MPs in the most marginal constituencies have done so too. They do so because they understand that if 10 million people are to be automatically enrolled into the new workplace pensions, every scheme must provide value for money. The Minister needs to take the necessary action and accept that.

David Mowat: I have just come back into the Chamber, but since the hon. Gentleman mentions the 40 Tory Members, I want to put on record the fact that as one of those 40, I was extremely happy to hear what the Minister said about the consultation, the 0.75% cap and his cognisance of the issues surrounding it. I shall therefore support the Government in any Divisions on these new clauses and amendments. [Interruption.]

Gregg McClymont: My letter has not had the desired effect. I thought that Madam Deputy Speaker called me “Greg Mulholland” there. I was processing that, rather
	than being shocked at the fact that the Treasury Parliamentary Private Secretary is going to vote with the Government. Believe it or not, that did not come as much of a surprise to me.

Eleanor Laing: I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. That was my mistake. Perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) will speak later. I call Greg McClymont.

Gregg McClymont: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether I had misheard or whether the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was trying to intervene.
	I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), one of the group of 40, as a doughty campaigner on behalf of those who wish to see radical reform of the pensions market. I do not know whether he had left his place when I quoted from the “40 Policy Ideas from the 40” and the description of the private pensions market as “failed”. I noted that the language used by those 40 MPs was stronger than anything I had used about the private pension market, and suggested that it is a little odd that Conservative MPs take a tougher line on the industry than the Liberal Democrat Minister. Perhaps it is not odd, however, because those who believe in free markets will want the pensions market to work effectively. [Interruption.] I did not catch what was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), but I invite him to intervene if he wishes to do so.
	Mr Speaker—[Laughter]—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are not the only one who can make a verbal slip!
	I was struck by what the Minister said about decumulation. It proved my point about his ability to talk but not necessarily to take any action, or enough action. New clause 11 calls for an independent brokerage service to guide those who annuitise on retirement through the process. Its aim is to deal with the lack of competition which, according to the NAPF and others, causes people to receive an average of 20% less in their annuities than they would have received had they shopped around. That returns me to a point with which I have been trying to persuade the Minister to engage. Buying an annuity involves a huge decision which a person will make only once in a lifetime, and which will affect the rest of that person’s life. However, the process is complicated, and because they find it hard to understand what they are being told, most people currently default to the annuities that they are being offered by their existing pension providers.

Katy Clark: I am glad that my hon. Friend is speaking up for savers. He is raising issues that have already been raised with me by a number of my constituents. When I told the Minister that we were waiting to hear proposals from the Government, he said that we would hear something very soon. Has my hon. Friend been given any indication of when that might happen?

Eleanor Laing: Gregg McClymont!

Gregg McClymont: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was beautifully pronounced, which is what I would expect from a Member from Kilmacolm. I look forward to your pronunciation of my constituency.
	My hon. Friend made a very good point. I think she, and indeed everyone who listened to the Minister’s response to new clause 11, will be wondering what he proposes in lieu of the new clause. “Nothing” is an honest and fair assessment—or, at least, “Nothing concrete or substantive.” Referring to decumulation, the Minister said, “An awful lot needs to be looked at. We need to go further, but we need a creative approach rather than merely focusing on annuities.” I understand what he meant, because there is an ongoing debate about annuities as a product, but people out there, including our constituents, are annuitising every day. I do not think that saying to those people, “We are going to think about some creative solutions, we cannot tell you what they are, and because we are going to do something creative, we should not at this stage do something specific and concrete in order to improve outcomes,” stands the test. How long will it be before the Minister deals with this problem?
	We know that annuities are a huge issue and that plenty of ideas are flying around, but ours is a concrete, practical proposal to improve annuity outcomes as things stand. I do not deny that the Minister has done something pretty significant in respect of state pensions, and I know that he must maintain a balance between pension schemes, but is it really good enough for him to respond to us by saying, “We need to do something—we need to go further—but we need a creative approach rather than your approach, which is focused on annuities”?
	Annuities are the product that most people have to buy, and I think it unfair of the Minister to reject our new clause on the grounds that he prefers a more creative approach without explaining what that creative approach will be. I know that he has a great deal on his plate with state pension reform—winding up the state second pension as quickly as he intends to wind it up constitutes an incredibly big reform—but I ask him to reflect on whether it is good enough to say to people who have saved throughout their lives, and who are now receiving much less than they could have received had they shopped around, “We cannot support the Opposition’s new clause because although an awful lot needs to be done and we need to go further, we need a more creative approach.” I do not believe that anyone will be convinced by that.
	The fact that people do not shop around for annuities is not the industry’s problem. Where there are shareholders, the industry exists to deliver shareholder value. If individuals choose to remain with their existing provider, the industry can encourage them to shop around—as it is currently doing by means of the open market option—but at some stage the industry will rightly say, “We have made efforts, but people are still not shopping around.” The Government must take action to ensure that people are given independent advice that will enable them to secure the best possible deal. That is in all our interests, because the more retirement income our constituents have, the more decent, enjoyable and, hopefully, long retirement they will experience.
	New clause 11 eliminates the gap between the Minister’s rhetoric about the tough action that he will take to deal with problems in the pension market and the reality. At present, he is saying, “We will not do what you suggest,
	but I have nothing to propose myself.” This is, after all, the Pensions Bill. If reform is not proposed in the Pensions Bill, where will it be proposed?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman’s central thesis seems to be that he should claim credit for Labour’s 2008 auto-enrolment legislation. He likes to say that auto-enrolment is a Labour thing. However, he has spent the last three quarters of an hour telling us how fatally flawed that legislation was. It contains no standards relating to quality or to annuities. I would have asked myself on day one, “How can we get value for money?” Why did Labour think that it was good enough to legislate for auto-enrolment without addressing any of those issues?

Gregg McClymont: The Minister took a similar approach when he talked about stakeholders. I shall say more about the stakeholder issue later, but let me first make clear to him that I have never claimed that all the credit for auto-enrolment should go to Labour; in fact, I have said a number of times that the Minister and the Government deserve credit for taking it on. The Minister is simply wrong to say that that is my “thesis”, as he put it. My thesis is that the Minister has underestimated the scale of the problems in the private pension market, and that the Bill and his comments on our new clauses suggest that he continues to do so. He says that Labour should have done this and should have done that, but I assure him that had I been pensions Minister in 2010, the first task on which a Labour Government would have focused would have been making the changes to auto-enrolment that were necessary to ensure that every saver was given value for money. [Interruption.] The new Whip, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), of whom I am extremely fond, has just said something that I could not hear because I was talking at the same time as he was mumbling, but I am sure that it was shrewd and thoughtful.
	The Minister talks of views. This is the Opposition’s critique. He has announced, “I want to carry out a radical reform of the state pension. I want to move from a very slow merging of the state second pension and the flat rate state pension to a hard and fast wind-up.” That is a complicated process that will take up a great deal of time. Meanwhile, he has been focusing on another issue, that of “defined ambition”. He spoke about that to the NAPF as well.
	My specific critique of the Minister’s approach is to do with sequencing. Given his intentions and actions in respect of the state second pension, he should have made sure that there is nothing in the auto-enrolment market that could end up with any of the 10 million savers who are going to be automatically enrolled getting less than value for money. At one level the Minister does not disagree with that, because he told the NAPF that we will look back at this period as either one when something happened that was for the long-term good or as one when the problems in the private pension market were not dealt with. The Minister has been too slow to get on to this and, based on what he has said today, he is still not taking the necessary action. He is saying he might take action, but his words, which I will examine shortly, reveal it is in fact the appearance of action without the reality of action.
	Let me develop that argument with reference to new clause 1 and our amendment (a). The Minister announced
	that there will be a consultation on a possible charge cap. We all knew that was coming: the Minister trailed it extensively. What did the Minister say about this consultation? First, it is important to note that it is a consultation, which, of course, does not commit the Government to doing anything. A consultation is not the same as legislation. The Minister became more engaged as he was speaking, and he finished by saying that this is a full-frontal assault on pension charges. The problem is he also said, “We will look at how far we can get.” A whole range of activity on charges has been undertaken, but, when he lists them, it is clear that they are mostly consultations. I give him credit on consultancy charges. The Minister acted decisively on that, but he needs to take similarly decisive action on the wider pension charges problem.
	The Minister’s language was instructive. He wanted to dress up a consultation as action, but it is not action. He floated the possibility that one consultation option will be a cap of 75 basis points, but he did not say what the other options would be. Given my knowledge over two years of the way the Minister proceeds, I doubt that this will be a consultation with only one option, so will he tell us what the various options for a charge cap will be? He is probably giving the House only partial information by noting there will be one option of 75 basis points.
	So the Minister announces a consultation, cherry-picks, for the benefit of his statement this afternoon, some of the things that will be in it, but no one in the House has yet seen the consultation and been able to examine it. That suggests the Pensions Minister is under pressure to get going on reforming the private pensions market, specifically in terms of costs and charges. That was what one felt when listening to the Minister. Not only did he spend a lot of time rebutting Labour’s vision for private pensions, but he felt the need to oversell what the Government are doing. I would say he felt that need because he feels under pressure on this issue. [Interruption.] The Minister suggests I am psychoanalysing him. As a historian rather than a psychoanalyst by trade, I will now present some evidence to support this view of the Minister.
	Just over a year ago, when Labour pointed out the problems with charges, the Minister said we were scaremongering. However—to take us back to the issue of the tin of beans, as I promised—the Minister said in his statement that the pensions market is not like a tin of beans and that is why we have to look at a charge cap, but he also said in January this year, “I’m not sure a charge cap’s the way to go because the pensions market is like a tin of beans.” First, that suggests an obsession with tins of beans, which one would never have expected of the Minister, but it also suggests a little confusion in the Minister’s mind about what kind of market the pensions market is.
	The Minister now says categorically, “The pension market is not like a tin of beans, so a charge cap has to be consulted upon”, but in January 2014 the Minister is quoted by AOL Money UK as saying there is no case for a pension charges cap and
	“he is not yet persuaded that the Government should cap pension charges.”
	The Minister can say he has changed his mind. I have absolutely no problem with that. He says he was not persuaded and now he is persuaded. That is a perfectly
	defensible position, but it gives credence to the Opposition argument that the Minister has been slow to realise just how dysfunctional this market is. The Minister said in January:
	“Why does the Government not set a price cap on a tin of baked beans? We do not need to because there is a vibrant market; people have lots of choice”.
	Yet today the Minister used the baked beans example himself and said categorically that the market is not like a tin of beans. That suggests the Minister has moved on this issue, which we welcome, but it raises this question: if he did not get it nine months ago, does he get it now? The way to test that is to look at what he said about charges, disclosure and caps in respect of new clause 1.
	The Minister made it clear that the consultation is happening and it is important, and he pointed back to stakeholder pensions and said, “The Labour Government brought in stakeholder pensions in 2001, but look at how high the charges were capped.” I think the Minister will agree that he and this Government, by taking on the Turner consensus developed by the last Government, are grappling with fundamental legacies of pension policy decisions made by previous Conservative Governments in particular. [Interruption.] The Minister says Labour ones, too, but let me develop this argument.
	The Thatcher Government did—I am sure for the best of intentions—a couple of things, one of which was breaking the link between earnings and the state pension, but we can come on to that when we talk about state pensions later. Specifically pertinent to the clauses and amendments currently under discussion, however, the Thatcher Government decided to encourage the taking out of personal private pensions and thereby encouraged—I will put it no stronger than that—5 million people to leave the state earnings-related pension scheme and/or occupational schemes. The Minister knows about pension pillars. The state pension is one pillar, and additional pension saving is another. What the Minister is trying to do in this Bill is reform the first pillar radically and make sure the additional pillar delivers effectively. That was the approach the Turner commission set out, and I am pleased to see the Minister nodding in agreement. The Turner commission reached that conclusion because it recognised that both pillars had to be rebuilt after the policy mistakes of the 1980s.

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman talks about policy mistakes of the Thatcher Government and about previous Governments. Will he admit that one of the most damaging things for our pension provision was the previous Prime Minister’s £100 billion raid on our pensions when he was Chancellor?

Gregg McClymont: I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the decision to remove the dividend—[Interruption.] I say to him, first, that I do not know where he gets that figure from. I have heard it from Conservative MPs, in particular, but I would be delighted if he explained where he got it from. I would be interested, because anyone who has looked at the matter closely would say that the figure had been plucked out of nowhere. Pensions are a long-term business, and I am not suggesting that the only Governments who ever made a mistake were previous Conservative Governments. However, the fundamental policy decisions that set the UK on a slippery slope regarding additional pension
	savings were the mistakes the Thatcher Government made through the enormous encouragement given to personal private pensions.
	The hon. Gentleman might remember, or might have read about, the way in which an army of pension salesmen was unleashed to persuade people that they should leave high-quality occupational schemes or the high-quality second state pension—the state earnings-related pension scheme—and go into personal pensions. They were offered enormous lump sums, not realising that such sums, up front, actually came out of their pension savings. They were promised enormous returns, and they were promised that they could pay less into a pension and get a much better retirement income. Where did that lead? It led directly to the private pension mis-selling scandals, whose legacy of public mistrust of pensions we all live with today.
	That relates back to my point about the Minister’s approach. He is trying to build back up and deliver, or try to deliver on, a consensus around the Turner proposals—that is the right thing to do. However, if he is going for a hard, fast wind-up of the second state pension, with the losers being low-paid private sector workers, he has to be clear and convinced that every auto-enrolment scheme—10 million people are going into these schemes—delivers value for money. That is where my view, and that of Opposition Members, that he has not moved fast enough comes from, and it is evident in his change in view that I have cited. His view on the private pensions market has evolved. We welcome his movement, but we say to him that he has to move faster, and that leads me to amendment (a).
	We have to draw a distinction between costs and charges. Our amendment would, in particular, make possible the disclosure of all transaction costs. The Minister alluded to that, saying, rightly, that we cannot have transaction costs in the cap. I absolutely agree with that; I do not know anyone who would say that transaction costs could be included in the cap. However, we need to ensure that the transaction costs are disclosed to employees and employers. He suggested that it was odd that the Opposition would want there to be a statutory record of costs and charges, but that is not odd; it is central to reforming the private pensions market.

Steve Webb: A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman rebuked me for saying that engagement was important, because for most people this is all about inertia, but he is now saying that employees are going to go to the pensions regulator’s website to look at transaction cost charges on their pension. Those two things cannot both be right.

Gregg McClymont: That is not what I was saying, and I will explain why. I am not surprised by the Minister’s response, because it probably explains why he was reported as saying at the NAPF conference that transparency “gets you virtually nowhere”. I assume the basis for that view, which at first glance appears odd, is that he takes the point that I have been making throughout this debate that seeing the pensions market as one where the saver is always is in charge or can always be in charge is simply wrong. I just put that on the record, but now let me deal with his point directly.
	First, I do not see any basis on which one can be against the full disclosure of everything that has an impact on pensions, including transaction costs. Secondly,
	if we had the disclosure of transaction costs, that would enable everyone with an interest in ensuring good pension outcomes, including the Government, to have the evidence at their fingertips to say to interested parties, stakeholders and, in particular, pension companies and fund managers, “That’s what you are charging? That’s not on.” How can the Minister not want to have all the evidence at his fingertips? He is taking a strange position. He says that he is carrying out a consultation on charges. We know that is a shift in his position, for the reasons I have set out and given his previous comments, but he is still behind the curve because he does not support the full disclosure of transaction costs—he certainly will not support our amendment (a), which will make such disclosure a reality.
	Let us be clear about this: we simply do not know what happens on costs when pension moneys are put into the “investment chain”. That seems an obscure term, but I am talking about where someone saves into a pension, their pension provider passes the pension savings to fund managers—they are often in the same organisation, because, as with the energy sector, there is a lot of vertical integration—and then the savings are invested. There is no comprehensive disclosure of all the costs that accrue in that process, and that cannot stand for much longer in the 21st century.
	The Minister was quoted as saying at the NAPF conference—if he has been quoted unfairly, I urge him to intervene to say so—not only that transparency “gets you virtually nowhere”, but that one had to strike a “balance” between the public’s right to know about transaction charges and the costs to fund managers of disclosure. We hear that argument a lot across political debate. It is not a foolish argument in some cases, but it is in this case, because fund management is such an opaque business and, according to the things we hear—without access to the facts we cannot know for sure—the costs can be significant. Hon. Members should not take my word for it. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills commissioned the Kay report on equity markets and “long-termism”, and Professor Kay made it clear that all transaction costs should be disclosed.
	Professor Kay was clear about that, on behalf of the Government—or, certainly, at the behest of the Minister’s Liberal Democrat colleague the Business Secretary—because of the evidence he had gathered that fund managers can over-churn pension fund savings. What do I mean by “over-churn”? The incentives lie in commissions for trading, and so rather than hold on to assets for the long-term—what one might call the “Warren Buffett” approach, which is a very successful long-term approach to investing and is consonant with the long-term nature of pensions—fund managers have a big interest in constantly trading, because that generates commissions. That might be the case, or it might not. We simply do not know, because those things are not disclosed. The Minister trumpets new clause 1, but it does not include any disclosure of transaction costs. If we want to move to an auto-enrolment system and have in mind the 10 million people who will be automatically enrolled, as a sine qua non of reform we must ensure that the transaction costs are disclosed.
	I am not sure whether you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, but just over a year ago the Royal Society of Arts investigated what pension providers understand by “the costs and charges” of a pension. It contacted
	25 big providers and the vast majority told it that the full costs and charges of a pension scheme were simply the annual management charge, not the total expenses ratio and not transaction costs. Our argument is that the Minister has been too slow to recognise how dysfunctional the private pension market remains. We welcome the fact that he is moving, but he is doing so far too slowly. As evidence of that, we cite the fact that he will not commit the Government today to the provision on the disclosure of transaction costs. Our amendment (a) to new clause 1 would ensure the disclosure of transaction costs.
	Our other amendments, as they pertain to the scale and value of pension schemes, to trustees and to annuities, would make a significant difference in the market. They would start to make the changes that are necessary to ensure that everybody gets value for money.

Brian H Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend make a distinction between a scheme with trustees and one under which the member must look after their own interests as it has no provision for a set of trustees to oversee it?

Gregg McClymont: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The logic of moving to a system in which every scheme has independent trustees flows from the fact that in the pensions market as it stands the consumer who is a member of a scheme without trustees cannot have their voice heard. What happens then? The interests of shareholders over-dominate. In a market that functions effectively, of course, the consumer can shop around, compare prices and if they buy something that they do not like they can even buy something else. None of that is true of the pensions market and that is why, in our view and given the options available, reaching a situation in which every scheme has trustees is the best way to try to ensure proper representation of saver interests. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

David Mowat: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and it seems to me that all his points should be input into the consultation the Minister announced earlier. The Minister made it quite clear that one issue that would be consulted on was a cap of 0.75%, and that among the issues to be resolved was what factors would be included—for example, total expense ratios, annual management charges or any other kind of charge. Those are all legitimate topics for consultation. I welcome the discussion, as it is surely the right thing.

Gregg McClymont: I do not disagree with any of that, apart from the fact that the chance to take the necessary steps has today been laid in front of the Government and the Minister. We must concede that auto-enrolment is already well under way, but at what stage will we see the action that is necessary? We will be in 2017 before we know it, when everyone will be auto-enrolled, and if the Minister has continued to consult rather than act we will be no further forward. The Minister has taken action on consultancy charges—he can do it—and I give him credit for that. He is undertaking a significant reform of the state pension, which we will discuss later, and he has many things to deal with, but the Government must act faster on these issues.
	Let me deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). If the Government were to accept our amendment (a), there would be full disclosure of transaction charges. It would not have to be put out to consultation. The Minister says that one must weigh the costs to the fund management industry against the benefits to savers, but my view is that that balance means that we must have full disclosure. I think that message from the Opposition is clear.
	Finally, let me put this in context. The Minister has proposed new clause 1 as the framework around which we will discuss private pensions today. He referred to the fact that he has for some time had the powers to cap charges, but has not used them. One suspects that new clause 1 is a way for the Minister—and I do not complain about this—to promote and publicise his desire to be seen to take decisive action on pension charges. It is worth pointing out, however, as the Minister has pointed out to me several times, that he already has powers to cap charges. I tell the hon. Member for Warrington South, whom I greatly respect on these issues, that those powers have been in place for some time—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is addressing a great many issues in this group of clauses and amendments, but, having heard his arguments several times, I trust that he will soon be drawing his remarks to a conclusion.

Gregg McClymont: Thank you for that wise advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat sidetracked by the excellent intervention—[Interruption.] That is another intervention from the Parliamentary Private Secretary. If Members want to stand up and say something, I am happy to take an intervention. If they want to heckle from the back row, I will continue to respond to those heckles.
	Where are we? The Minister wants to be seen to be taking decisive action on pension charges but today he has called for yet another consultation. He has moved on during the past year, as he had said that Labour was scaremongering and he could see no need for a cap. The consultation is a development, but we need action now. Our amendment (a) to new clause 1 would ensure full disclosure of all costs and charges and our other proposals would ensure a private pension system that would mean that everyone who was auto-enrolled would get value for money. The Minister is right that auto-enrolment started well, but he knows as well as I do that the key is the smaller employers. We are determined that everyone should get a good deal from auto-enrolment and I therefore commend our new clauses and amendments to the House.

Richard Graham: This is the first time I have made a speech while you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me add my warm congratulations to the many that you have already been given.
	Our debate today has been a pretty specialist affair so far, in a different language from that which many of our constituents speak. It has no doubt been a struggle for many in the Public Gallery to remain awake throughout. As we dive into the detail, let us not forget the goal: the Bill’s aims are simplicity, clarity, a reduction in the flaws
	in means-testing and, above all, to ensure that it always pays to save. Some of that was rather lost in the 85 minutes for which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) spoke, so let me try to bring us swiftly back to the main points of detail.
	Earlier we tackled auto-enrolment, small pots, aggregators, charges, scale and annuities. No doubt that would be enough to put many people off listening to any more, but let me add my thoughts briefly on each in turn. First, on auto-enrolment, the Minister outlined the success so far—1.7 million people already enrolled and 90% of them staying in. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said that he was cautious and that that percentage might not be sustainable as we started enrolling those in smaller firms across the country. He may well be right about that. The Minister will be acutely aware of that, which is why he is right to tackle some of the detail now, ahead of the smallest companies enrolling.
	The important thing in the section on auto-enrolment was the changes outlined today—two opt-outs, for those who have already given notice of leaving their employer and for those who would suffer negative tax penalties because they had already accumulated more than the maximum allowed for tax-free savings. The Minister confirmed that there is absolutely no intention of excluding small and medium-sized enterprises, the lifeblood of every Member’s constituency. That is important, and he rightly summarised Labour’s amendment 53 as unnecessary, unclear and ineffectual.
	The discussion on small pots, importantly, covered the differences between the pot follows member approach recommended by the coalition Government and the aggregator approach proposed by the Opposition. The precedent of Australia is relevant. Those 5 million lost accounts worth some 20 billion Australian dollars are not a small matter. Millions of our constituents are affected. Those of us who have accumulated small pots at different periods in our life know that it is extremely hard to keep track of them and to have any idea of what our savings really are. The whole business of pensions is ultimately about savings. It is about accumulating a pot of money which will see us safely through retirement, ensuring that we can live after retirement without having to fall back on savings.

Brian H Donohoe: Does the hon. Gentleman also consider that a pension pot is a deferred income and should be treated as such? The problem is that not many people do so.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that all savings are ultimately deferred income. If he is trying to differentiate capital and income from investments, which I do not think he is, that is a separate issue. I accept his point that ultimately everything is deferred income, though I would prefer the word “savings”, as we will all need savings at some point. There is no significant difference between us on that.
	The Opposition approach is towards an aggregator, which is an uncomfortable world where there is no choice and our savings pot is shunted off in a Thomas the tank engine-like way to God knows where. We will not get into allusions from the names of the engines in “Thomas the Tank Engine”. That would be unfortunate and arguably inappropriate. The important thing, as the
	Minister rightly said, is that we must not have small pots that follow the member into a bad scheme. We must focus on all schemes being good. That is why it is important to legislate for quality schemes, as the coalition Government are doing.
	I welcome the amendment that the Minister mentioned whereby those who have been in a scheme for less than 30 days will get a refund, but it is important that the practice which has grown up over time of people being in schemes for less than two years and being bought out for a not very significant sum comes to an end. I welcome that, as will many people across the land.
	After small pots and aggregators, we come to the rub of the issue—charges. The Minister rightly observed that 1% compounded over time amounts to a huge amount of money paid out in charges to fund managers and administrators, and that it is important to follow the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading report, which noted that pension savings is one of the worst sectors for charges, that the demand side is weak and that there is the contradiction of the employer choosing the manager, but the member effectively paying for that choice.
	I welcome, and many Members across the House and others outside this place should welcome, the opportunity to look objectively and constructively at the issue of charges through a consultation. The option of 0.7% is no doubt at the lower end of options out there. That gives this Government and Members a chance to see what might be the most practical options, bearing in mind always that we do not want to limit the management of those funds to a handful of very large providers—the equivalent of supermarkets in a world where sometimes a delicatessen tailoring their investment to what members need can be an attractive and practical option.
	The process of a consultation on charges clearly needs to include a definition of those charges. I was disappointed to hear so little of substance from the shadow Minister on the subject of charges. He did not even mention total expense ratio or any of the other aspects and acronyms that comprise charges, which are beloved of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and others of us who have previously worked in the sector. There was no detail at all from the Opposition spokesman and, at the end of his 85 minutes of speaking, I am none the wiser about the charge that the Opposition are recommending
	On charges generally, I think I can summarise the shadow Minister’s speech for Members and especially for those in the Gallery, whose concentration may understandably have wandered during those 85 minutes. There were four messages that he wanted to get out: first, highlight the fact that the coalition will do nothing for living standards; secondly, accuse the Government of sticking up for big business, not small pensioners; thirdly, sound as if the Opposition are offering an energy price freeze; and fourthly, do not give a precise figure. The approach behind all that is not to let the facts get in the way of the narrative. That, in about 12 seconds, broadly covers what the shadow Minister said in 85 minutes on the issue of charges.
	The approach of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to the Government’s recommendation of a consultation amounted to a simple slogan: consultation, not action. This, I thought, was a curious approach by the shadow Minister. He earlier intimated that he is very cautious about the implementation
	of auto-enrolment—the results might not be as good as they have started out to be and it was too early to celebrate. He gave the impression of being a very cautious driver, one who was unwilling to take unnecessary risks and who wanted the Minister to make sure that he keeps the car on the road.
	Such analogies were built into the hon. Gentleman’s approach, but caution is precisely why, after 13 years of the previous Government, auto-enrolment had not been implemented. It is precisely why they did not pursue universal credit. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), admitted, it was too difficult. It is precisely why the previous Government were unable to make decisions—no nuclear power stations, no changes to the schools funding formula, no privatisation of Royal Mail, too little stimulus to apprenticeships, very little impact on manufacturing. It was all too difficult.
	The approach of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East today is to try to take credit for his party for the idea of auto-enrolment, and then to snipe at the detail offered by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman coupled that with something close to an apology for the previous Government not having done enough in the world of pensions, but it was a little like the policemen on Plebgate recently—it was not a wholehearted apology, but rather a nudge towards an apology. That was disappointing, because the central issue of charges is precisely what the debate is likely to focus on.
	The shadow Minister alluded seven times, I think—I tried to keep count—to what he called the policy paper, “40 Policy Ideas from the 40”. He wrote me a charming letter about it:
	‘Dear Richard… The policy paper entitled “40 ideas from the 40”, to which you were a contributor’—
	I was not a contributor. I fear that he might not have read it in sufficient detail to understand who was and who was not a contributor. However, he was absolutely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South was a contributor and that he mentioned the lack of transparency in costs and charges in almost exactly the same language, as he confirmed today, as the Minister used when he called for the consultation on charges, which I think we all welcome and look forward to.
	I have now covered the issue of charges, which leaves me with scale and annuities. Had Mr Speaker still been here, I would have said on the issue of scale that both he and I could arguably be accused of self-interest in making the point that size is not everything.

Gregg McClymont: There is a joke in that somewhere, but I will not go there. I was just struck that the hon. Gentleman—we have debated this in Committee—said that he was not a member of the Forty Group. I have in front of me a copy of “40 Policy Ideas from the 40”, which states that the group
	“consists of the forty most marginal Conservative seats”,
	and he is one of the Members listed.

Richard Graham: The shadow Minister must learn to be more precise in what he says. His letter referred to
	‘“40 ideas from the 40”, to which you were a contributor’
	but I did not contribute. When I have good ideas, which is rarely, I either keep them to myself or share them with colleagues verbally. I do not put them down on pieces of paper for him to read, or not read as the case may be. I hope that he will take on board that correction. I am a member of the Forty Group, but I was not a contributor, and there is a difference.

Gregg McClymont: This is all very curious, because the front cover of the document refers to “40 Policy Ideas from the 40”, and its states:
	“The Forty Group consists of the forty most marginal Conservative seats”.
	One of the MPs listed is the hon. Gentleman—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We are straying somewhat from the amendments and new clauses before us. If there is a difference of opinion, it will have to remain as such. I urge hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Chamber please to stick to the points before us on private pensions.

Richard Graham: I welcome your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Before the shadow Minister intervened, I had been referring to scale. I touched briefly on the fact that size is not everything when it comes to the management of pension funds, as with so much else in life, Madam Deputy Speaker. In order not to delay you further on that point, I will move swiftly on to annuities.
	Annuities matter. We are in a new world, as the Minister said, because we are living longer and we need more options. There is more to annuities than simply a need for more competition, choice and help, although that is important and the code of conduct from the Association of British Insurers is a promising start. I agree with the Minister, though, that we should go further. At the heart of the matter is transferability—being able to trade annuities at different periods of life when different circumstances crop up and when there is different pricing in the marketplace. What we certainly do not want is a single product solution. I was lobbied heavily at the Conservative party conference by an annuity provider who was keen to impress on me the importance and relevance of their single product solution, but my instinct—I hope that the Minister is with me on this—is that such solutions are precisely what we do not need in the world of annuities.
	Those were the six main points I wanted to cover—auto-enrolment, small pots, aggregators, charges, scale and annuities—and I have done so in about seven minutes. There is no need to go on for much longer, but I will try to bring my speech to some sort of rounded conclusion by asking the Minister to note three queries that constituents have raised with me.
	The first query, which I think is important for Members across the House, relates to bereavement support payment. It is clearly an emotional issue, as all families who have had to deal with tragedy will understand, particularly when it comes to bereaved children. Winston’s Wish is a charity headquartered in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), but it has a significant presence in mine. It has made a number of points, not all of which I agree with, but one is that the tax status of bereavement support payment is slightly unclear. I would be grateful if the Minister could say
	more about that and whether it will be tax-free, because that would be hugely appreciated. Given that the trend of his proposals on bereavement support payment is effectively to increase the amount of money but have it paid for a shorter time, having that payment tax-free would be hugely helpful for families affected. There is a second point from Winston’s Wish that I want to raise with the Minister. I understand that unmarried partners are currently ineligible for BSP, so perhaps he will confirm whether people in civil partnerships are eligible.
	The second query from a constituent relates to changes to occupational schemes, which my constituent believes can be done under the Bill without agreement from either members or trustees; currently trustees would have to approve it. My instinct is that long-standing defined benefit schemes, such as that of the major nuclear power operator headquartered in Barnwood in my constituency—formerly British Energy but now EDF Energy—are most unlikely to close without any form of consultation or discussion with members or trustees, but I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

Steve Webb: It might benefit the House to know that the measure in the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is the statutory override, which simply allows employers to recoup the loss of national insurance rebate. The state pension changes imply a change to the national insurance regime, so his constituency employer would lose some money. The Bill simply allows them to recoup that cash and nothing else, for example by changing the accrual rates in the scheme. It is designed to help employers cushion the blow of the loss of the rebates.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. If I understand it correctly, the employer will recoup the cost of the national insurance but nothing else?

Steve Webb: indicated assent.

Richard Graham: I am glad to see the Minister nodding on that.

Katy Clark: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have nuclear power stations in my constituency—Hunterston A, which is currently being decommissioned, and Hunterston B. Has he, like me, been contacted by numerous employees who are incredibly concerned about the protections that will be taken away from them by this legislation?

Richard Graham: That is an interesting point. The answer is yes, but they are not in the hundreds. They come in two types. One type number those who are either still working there and are concerned about possible changes to the defined benefit scheme and exactly the issue I have just gone through with the Minister. I hope that that will be reassuring to the hon. Lady’s constituents as well as to mine.
	The second type of person who has been in touch relates to the third constituency query I was going to raise: those members who are covered by the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990. I see the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) nodding and suspect that she has been contacted by people in a similar situation. The issue is that their pensions might be affected by changes to their pension schemes to reflect
	these higher national insurance costs. I understand that the Government have still not responded to their own consultation on whether to exempt protected persons from these changes. The Minister might care to comment on that later. It might be something that the Treasury is involved in, alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, but I think that it would be right to express concern on behalf of some of the pensioners involved. However, I understand that there is an argument that both existing pensioners and current members of a pension scheme should be treated with consistency on that. I raise the issue so that the Minister can respond. Those were the three queries on bereavement, change of occupational schemes—which has been answered—and the protected persons scheme.
	In conclusion, what the Government are proposing in the Pensions Bill is important and will make a difference. The changes will enable people to save and that saving will pay. The technical details, which the Minister covered earlier, are important for smoothing out some of the small but niggly details that will affect our constituents in due course.
	At the risk of repeating myself, I am disappointed by the approach taken by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. For him and his party to fall back on a slogan of “consultation not action” really was disappointing; after 86 minutes we would have hoped for a great deal more clarity on his precise proposals. What exactly does he intend to do on charges? In the absence of such clarity, I hope that he and Members from all parties will make substantive contributions to the consultation so that we can agree on the charges, make changes to the annuity details and say with pride to all our constituents that this Pensions Bill will make a difference to all our lives in retirement.

Caroline Lucas: I have tabled new clause 12 and amendments 54 and 55 in order to highlight the need for the Department for Work and Pensions to address the systemic risks posed by climate change and natural resource depletion to pension schemes as a whole, and to suggest some positive solutions.
	The Minister has already mentioned the report launched today as part of the new green light campaign by ShareAction, in partnership with the trade unions and environmental groups, which highlights the urgent need for reforms to the pension industry to ensure that it takes greater account of climate and environmental risks. I am glad that the Minister was able to be present to launch it.
	Obviously, pension funds use the money paid into them every month to make investments in shares of companies, bonds, properties and other assets, which makes them enormously powerful players in shaping the economy, especially as they have significant investments in fossil fuel companies. However, if we want to keep climate change below dangerous levels, we need pension funds to fund and support a low-carbon economy by, for example, investing in clean technologies and low-carbon infrastructure projects. Moreover, today’s report shows that the UK pension funds have £3 trillion at risk from so-called unusable fossil fuel investments—fossil fuels which, if we are serious about keeping to our climate change commitments, we simply cannot afford to burn. That is a huge threat to the incomes of future pensioners.
	In the UK an increasing number of voices are speaking out about the need for pension funds and others to divest themselves of fossil fuel assets. Operation Noah has launched “Bright Now”, a church divestment campaign whose first success came early this month when Quakers in Britain announced that they will disinvest from companies engaged in extracting fossil fuels, which made them the first UK Christian denomination to do so.
	UK university students are increasingly engaged in divestment campaigns, as evidenced by the work undertaken by People & Planet. To date, there are 19 active divestment campaigns across the UK, including universities with large endowments: Cambridge, Oxford and Edinburgh.
	Looking further afield, 70 of the largest pension funds in the US and the world issued a statement last week setting out their view that major fossil fuel companies may not be as profitable in the future, precisely because of efforts to limit climate change. They are asking for details on how the firms will manage a long-term shift to cleaner energy sources.
	Here at Westminster, the recent Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report on the Kay review of the UK equity market and long-term decision making, which was produced earlier this year, recommended that the stewardship code should do more to address environmental, social and governance factors and systemic financial risks, as well as calling for more robust reporting on conflicts of interest.
	I agree with the Minister’s comments this morning about the need for fiduciary duty to consider climate and environmental risks to our pension system and for this to be in the mainstream, first, because that is important to reduce the risks to pension holders themselves, and secondly, in order to harness the huge contribution that pension funds can make to the massive investment that we need in clean energy infrastructure. New clause 12 and amendments 54 and 55 make modest proposals of ways in which the Department could make that happen.
	New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to
	“commission an independent review of the implications of climate change and natural resource constraints for the sustainability of private pensions.”
	The review should
	“consider the implications for long-term investment outcomes for members of work-based pension schemes of potential…systemic risks posed by high levels of exposure to fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive assets…economic and physical impacts of climate change under various climate mitigation scenarios; and…constraints on the availability of non-renewable resources”,
	such as food, land and water resources.
	That proposal builds on a landmark paper by the actuarial profession that modelled the implication of resource constraints for private pensions and found that, even in the best-case scenario, pension outcomes are likely to be worse than currently predicted because the industry is not factoring in risks associated with those constraints on food, water and land. In the worst-case scenario, savers in the model of a defined-contribution pension scheme were only half as well off, while the defined-benefit pension scheme became insolvent. The new clause also builds on work by Carbon Tracker on unburnable carbon, which shows that if the aim is to secure long-term returns, divesting from fossil fuel assets would be a pretty sensible thing to do.
	That divestment has started. Nordic life and pensions company Storebrand, which has more than 450 billion kroner of assets under management, excluded 19 fossil fuel companies from its investment line-up in July. That exclusion was based on concerns about the long-term financial risks of remaining invested in carbon dioxide-intensive companies.
	Amendment 54 relates to the objectives of the Pensions Regulator. Clause 42 gives the regulator a new objective to
	“minimise any adverse impact on the sustainable growth of an employer,”
	which is pretty controversial, because it is based on the view that servicing pension deficits is hampering the ability of business to invest. My amendment would insert a new objective requiring the regulator also to
	“promote, and to improve understanding of long-term and sustainable investment”
	by pension schemes.
	The current regulatory regime is fragmented: both the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority have some responsibility for work-based pensions. The regulator, however, has historically been reluctant to look under the bonnet of schemes’ investment strategies, focusing instead on governance and administration. The FCA has also paid little attention to the matter, seeing it as the regulator’s responsibility. Both treat sustainability as at best a sideshow and at worst an irrelevance. The amendment would specifically mandate the regulator to pay attention to the issues.
	Finally, amendment 55 would amend schedule 16, which gives the Government powers to introduce new quality standards for automatic enrolment schemes through regulations. Consumer groups have rightly argued that Government have a responsibility to make sure that people’s pensions cannot be transferred out of a good scheme into a bad scheme. The Bill as drafted provides that the new quality standards may in particular relate to governance and administration, which is welcome, but it is equally important for policy makers to look under the bonnet of schemes’ investment strategies, if they are to operate in the best interests of pensioners. The amendment would, therefore, add a third leg to the quality standards relating to the ability of the scheme to generate sustainable investment returns. The detail of any such standards could include reference to a scheme’s policy and practice on things such as climate change risks, including natural resource depletion.
	I welcome the fact that in his opening comments the Minister spoke pretty favourably about that agenda and my amendments, and I understand his point that he needs to take a cross-Government, integrated approach to what fiduciary duty really involves. I do not, however, see that as an argument against my amendments—at least not all of them.
	I draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 12 in particular. It is specific to the pensions field and is about finding the evidence that will help feed into precisely the cross-Government approach he advocates. I ask him again to accept the new clause, which would at least give us some comfort and reassurance that he is serious about delivering on his warm words this morning. The new clause is not just about fiduciary duty; it is about gathering data on the impact of climate change
	and natural resource constraints for the sustainability of private pensions and for a better understanding of the systemic risks posed by high levels of exposure to fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive assets. To my mind, that is a prerequisite for any future integration across Government of this kind of concern. I see it as an issue not of moving ahead of the rest of the Government, but of gathering information that will be very useful to Government. I ask the Minister again to consider accepting new clause 12.

Sheila Gilmore: I want to speak on Opposition new clause 11 on annuities. The scandal of annuities was widespread and is well known. It has caused many people to suffer a much reduced income in retirement.
	The Minister, with all due respect, engaged in diversionary tactics when dealing with the Opposition proposal. He talked about other things that people might do when they are reaching retirement age and planning for their retirement. He spoke about other draw-down opportunities that might be better for them and said that people should get as much advice as possible. He failed to deal with the specific proposal.
	It is not good enough simply to say that it would be good for people to have many different opportunities and a lot of advice. It is important to ensure that when people are deciding whether to annuitise, which they will ultimately have to do, they know all the options. It is not necessary for everyone to annuitise as soon as they reach retirement age; that decision can be postponed. The question is who should advise people about this matter and how we can ensure that people know all the options. The variety in the kinds of annuity that are offered and the deals that people can get is considerable.
	Annuities are an important element in creating a retirement income that is adequate for people to live on. I urge the Minister to change his view and to accept that the arrangements that the Opposition are proposing do not fly in the face of his desire to explain other options to people and to give people those options. Many of the people who fare the worst do not have such substantial pension pots that they have a wide range of options and they cannot necessarily afford to postpone annuitisation, because they do not have much other income.
	As ever, it is the role of Parliament and of Government to protect those who are in the weakest position. We must always have those people in mind. Those who have lots of options probably receive good advice anyway or could afford to pay for good advice. For many people, the whole matter of pensions is entirely baffling. Those people tend to go with the easiest or most obvious option.
	The 20 to 30 years over which people—even those on relatively low incomes—have increasingly been expected to source their own pension provision and to take up pension options, such as the many money purchase or defined-contribution schemes that have been offered, have resulted in many people having very poor pension outcomes. One reason for that has been the charges and costs, which greatly reduce the pension pot that people end up with.
	As the Minister has said, transparency is not enough. Transparency goes a long way, but action needs to be taken beyond that. I acknowledge that it is a step forward that on Report, although not before, we have a
	provision on capping charges. It would be better to be more specific about that and not to wait too long for a consultation process that could have been started a considerable time ago.
	I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, but I want to say a little about the view expressed by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who did not accept my intervention, that the last Government did not do much for pensioners. The subtext seemed to be that all our views and proposals could therefore be discounted. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners saw a substantial increase in their income, and therefore in their well-being and health, because of provisions such as pension credit that were introduced by the last Government. That is not to say that there were not problems with those provisions, or that they would have been needed in an ideal world.
	Much of the debate at that time focused on restoring the earnings link because, unlike now, earnings were outstripping prices. Everybody who was campaigning on the issue focused on that. However, restoring the earnings link and letting things move up gradually would not have helped the many pensioners who had a very quick increase in their income and well-being. Many of those people were women, because women often end up being the poorest in retirement. Those people would tell us very clearly how important that was for them. It is not fair—indeed, it is quite wrong—to rewrite history and suggest that it was not helpful.
	As I have said in previous debates, the fact that that expenditure was in place made the job of introducing the single-tier pension easier for the Minister. We will discuss the single-tier pension in due course. That expenditure is one of the underpinnings that has allowed him to introduce the single-tier pension, apparently without increasing the overall expenditure on state pensions. Indeed, it is predicted that the overall expenditure will decrease in the long term. I hope that everyone will accept that the Labour Government did a great amount of thinking and work on pensions.
	We must remember that many people were paying into pension schemes of various kinds long before auto-enrolment, perhaps with the assistance of an employer or perhaps because they chose to do so themselves. We must ensure that we protect those people; otherwise they will lose out. The same is true of how we carry forward small pots for different individuals. There are still serious concerns among people who are knowledgeable about the industry that the Minister’s pot follows member proposal may lead to some people having to transfer savings that they already have into a scheme that has higher charges and, therefore, a less good outcome for them than the scheme that the savings are currently in or a scheme that they would have chosen to transfer their pension into.
	I must respond to the general comments made by the hon. Member for Gloucester, who is no longer in his place, about the previous Government wanting to introduce change or reform. He referred specifically to pension credit and, inadvertently perhaps, he misquoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—he is my parliamentary neighbour; our constituencies touch at one point within Edinburgh—who said not only that the previous Government looked at the possibility of a system like universal credit, but that the overwhelming advice was that it was too difficult
	and would be extremely expensive to implement. The cost-effectiveness of such a system, and its benefit to claimants, was therefore put in some doubt.
	It ill befits anyone to suggest that the current Government have solved the problem of universal credit. As we are seeing at the moment, all the predictions made by those who have previous experience suggest that such a system is proving extremely difficult, extremely slow, and no doubt extremely expensive. Whether it will benefit people receiving benefits we have yet to see. One must therefore be cautious in suggesting that the previous Government were wrong in not going ahead with such a scheme. We will see what transpires over the next few years although experience to date has not been all that healthy. I urge the Minister to consider annuities in a great deal more detail, as they are crucial for people’s retirement income and well-being during those years of retirement.

Greg Mulholland: I will keep my remarks brief. Other Members wish to speak to amendments, so I will ensure I give them time to do so. I will start with a few introductory comments because I am aware that, with today’s short time scale, it is unlikely that I will be able to make them on Third Reading. I pay tribute to and praise the role played by my hon. Friend the Minister. He has done an incredible job in taking through this hugely important, historic and complex Bill on an issue that we all agree is of utmost importance to our constituents and society. We can agree across the House that there is no one more capable, knowledgeable or expert in taking through this Bill, and as a Liberal Democrat I am proud that he has played that role and that the Bill will receive its Third Reading today.
	Equally, I pay tribute to the expert and intelligent contributions made by Members from across the House in Committee. This complicated matter requires particular scrutiny, which it has received, and contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have rightly reflected that. Having said that, there is a need to redress the balance. Although scrutiny is important, so far this section of today’s proceedings has missed the point that this is an incredibly positive piece of legislation that will make a huge difference to people who are looking forward to retirement, and give them certainty about the level of income they can expect. The Bill builds on things that the Government have already established, including restoring the earnings link to the basic state pension and introducing the triple lock guarantee. That guarantee has helped increase the state pension by £12.50 a week since 2010, and delivered the biggest increase in the state pension in 2010.
	As a whole, this historic and important Bill will deliver the single-tier pension to give a clearer, fairer pension to all and, crucially, a better pension to women and the self-employed. In the context of the amendments, it is equally important, as I sure the Minister would be first to agree, to take forward the challenge of auto-enrolment and ensure that private and occupational pensions are built in alongside the historic and positive changes to the state pension.
	I say gently that, after the earlier mix up, I am sure that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and I would
	agree that we want as many “Gregg Ms” in Parliament debating these issues as possible. To refer back to something he said, however, I think he has been one of “Les Misérables” today. He has not found a single thing to praise—certainly not with a smile on his face or any enthusiasm—while doing his job, as an Opposition spokesman, which I acknowledge he has to do, of scrutinising. The fact that the Bill is a huge improvement on what the previous Government, whom he served, introduced, has not come across. They introduced auto-enrolment, which was welcome, but the Bill is a huge step in taking it forward.

Gregg McClymont: rose—

Greg Mulholland: I will of course allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Perhaps he will acknowledge that improvement with a smile on his face.

Gregg McClymont: The hon. Gentleman has referred to me as being among “Les Misérables”. Is he aware that I am Scottish?

Greg Mulholland: I had the great pleasure of living in Scotland for three years—two years in Glasgow. When I moved up there, I was more able to understand French than a broad Glaswegian accent, but I rectified that. He will be pleased that I know how to pronounce the name of his constituency in its entirety—[Interruption.] Gloaming—the word he utters from his seat on the Front Bench—is an excellent Scottish word.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I suggest we move on to new clause 1 at some point.

Greg Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I remind the House what the improvements to auto-enrolment will do, which has not come out in the debate? Let us look at the figures. Some 1.6 million people have signed up for auto-enrolment. Of course, the ability to opt out remains, but rather than the expected one in three opting out, the figure is only 10%. Many millions of people are not currently saving for their retirement, but auto-enrolment will lead to between 6 million and 9 million people saving for the first time by 2018. That is crucial.
	It is important to remember—this, too, has not been mentioned in the debate—that, as well as employee contributions, there will be support from employers and the Government. People aged 22 or over who are earning more than £9,440 a year will be automatically put into the pension scheme. Individuals who choose to save 4% of their income will benefit from an employer contribution of 3% and tax relief of 1%. It is important to welcome and emphasise that—it should be welcomed and emphasised by all hon. Members.
	The key debate is on charging. The Minister referred to the OFT report that raised concerns about standards, particularly in legacy schemes. The Government have rightly amended the Bill to take that into account. I warmly welcome amendment 30 and his announcement of the consultation. I believe the consultation should be welcomed and not criticised.
	I should gently make one point to my namesake, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. He gave the impression that he was critical of the Government’s approach on consultation, but in amendment (a), which he has tabled, proposed new subsection (3) to Government new clause 1 states:
	“Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation”.
	It is odd that he is critical of the Government’s approach while calling for the very same consultation in black and white.
	The hon. Gentleman was slightly wrong, or he misplaced his emphasis, in his suggestion that the Government are consulting rather than taking action. He knows—his proposal shows this—that consultation is a necessary precursor to legislation. It is important in getting legislation right. Without daring to put words into the mouth of the Minister, I think it is important to say that the intention is clear—that there should be a charge cap and that one will be introduced. The point of the consultation is not whether to introduce one: it is to find out the best way to do so. We should be clear about the subject of the consultation.
	I have one question for the Minister, which he may be able to answer. The announcement on the consultation is imminent, although it is not happening as part of the Bill, so will we see him back at the Dispatch Box soon to make it? He is clearly the right and proper person to make the announcement, given his involvement in the Bill. I hope that he will be back, perhaps even in the next 24 or 48 hours, to announce it, and I and others look forward to welcoming that and the details that I am sure he will wish to lay out.
	Despite this being a complicated subject in terms of the figures, the construct of the Bill and the pension sector as a whole, we all know that in the end this is about people’s future incomes and ensuring that they have a reasonable standard of living in their retirement, as well as more certainty in their retirement. The figures that the Minister provided about the current impact of the 1.5% and 1% charges were startling in showing just how much money people lose over the course of saving for their pensions. That is why a cap is right.
	I say gently to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that in his 78-minute speech—at least, I made it 78 minutes, not 86 minutes—[Interruption.] I am being generous: perhaps the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) thought that it felt like 86 minutes. In any case, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East showed his knowledge of his brief, and I commend him for that, but it is slightly strange to hear his many recommendations for auto-enrolment when the previous Government would not even countenance those suggestions at the time of introduction. Nor did he acknowledge the problems with the 1% and 1.5% charges.
	This has been a long and challenging process. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made contributions that have been listened to and addressed. I look forward to the consultation. All of us with an interest in this issue should watch it closely and take part in it. We should also encourage others to take part. I shall end by congratulating the Minister, his team and his colleagues on what they have done to get this important Bill to this stage. It will lead to more certainty and fairer retirement incomes for the people of this country.

Katy Clark: In the short time available to me, I wish to focus on the issue of protected persons, which was raised in the debate by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who also has many constituents employed in the nuclear industry. The electricity sector
	will be affected, as well as many other sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has tabled new clause 7 to address those affected in the railway industry, who are protected persons as a result of a privatisation that happened 20 years ago. Other industries affected include energy, water and mining. It is believed that some 52,000 people in this position will probably be affected by the Bill.
	Many of my constituents have been in touch with me on the issue. They tell me that the Government have still not responded to the consultation on whether to exempt protected persons from changes to their pension schemes to reflect higher employer national insurance costs from April 2016. I will focus not so much on the detail of new clause 7, which would help those in the railway industry, or new clause 37, which would help those in other sectors, but on the principle they both address.
	This is not a historic issue relating to 52,000 individuals. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that we maintain the promises made, but we need to address, too, privatisations that are taking place now. For example, the privatisation of Royal Mail took place only this month; indeed, there is an active industrial dispute in that sector relating to pensions, as well as pay and conditions. The Government need to be absolutely clear about this principle. As parliamentarians, we have been here time and again, trying to protect the interests of those affected by privatisations and to obtain assurances, from Governments across the political spectrum, on individuals’ contractual rights at the time of privatisation.
	The Government’s proposals will tear up promises made to individuals and we need to think carefully about what that means. In the railways pensions scheme, we already have individuals—for example, Jarvis Facilities workers—for whom the insolvency of privatised companies has meant that they are suffering detriment. Jarvis went into administration in 2010 and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has been actively involved in making representations on behalf of individuals affected. That is the type of scenario we are dealing with. A number of private railway companies—whether in the railways themselves or London underground—have become insolvent and gone back to the public sector. It is easy to see many scenarios in which work forces will be placed in a situation where there is an insolvency or something similar, and their pension may suffer detriment.
	We have promised individuals that protection will be given to them. Those assurances were backed up by statutory provision when the railways were privatised 20 years ago, and when the energy sector and other sectors were privatised. We promised—this Parliament promised and Governments promised—that those individuals’ pension rights would be no worse under privatisation. They trusted those Governments and the promises they made. There was much negotiation at the time about the detail of the legislation. MPs representing their constituents were concerned that the law being put before them was not strong enough to give them the protection they were being promised.
	The reality is that Governments made promises to individuals. The Minister should give an undertaking, on behalf of this Government, to stick by them and not renege on those promises, and to ensure that those who rely on the protections offered are able to continue to
	feel satisfied that, if things were to go wrong, the provisions will be there and those individuals will not suffer detriment. I therefore ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 7 and new clause 37, which we will be considering later, to ensure that protections remain in place.

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) has addressed the spirit of new clause 7, which stands in my name. It may well be that we are not able to discuss amendment 37, but she has addressed the core principle behind the new clause.
	Parliament has a moral responsibility that is separate from government. When Governments give promises to people, Parliament has a role in ensuring that they are adhered to. That is what new clause 7 is all about. As my hon. Friend said, on privatisation, the principle should apply across the piece.
	We have discussed the background to new clause 7 before in a wider debate about what happened to the Jarvis workers when Network Rail withdrew its contracts and the company collapsed. As many involved in that debate know, the Jarvis workers, many of whom were not transferred to successor companies, suffered greatly: they lost their jobs and could not find alternative employment, and some have become nomads, circling the country trying to pick up work to bring in at least some income. In addition, they lost their pension protection, and that is what the new clause deals with.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, section 134 of, and schedule 11 to, the Railways Act 1993 enabled the Secretary of State to create a new pension scheme for the railways industry, to transfer the assets and liabilities of the old British Rail pension scheme to the new scheme and, above all, to protect the rights of members of the scheme once they became members of the new scheme. The debate was extensive. Few Members now were in the House then, but as Hansard shows, there were extremely heated, but detailed debates about the principle and detail of the legislation, particularly the protections of individual workers.
	Three orders were introduced. First, the Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994 created the railways pension scheme, set out its rules and designated it as the successor industry-wide scheme replacing the British Rail pension scheme. Secondly, the Railway Pensions (Transfer and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 transferred the assets and liabilities of the British Rail pension scheme to the new railways pension scheme. Thirdly, the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 set out the protection to be afforded to members of the British Rail pension scheme who transferred involuntarily to the railways pension scheme.
	After months of debate in the House and negotiations between the Government and the sector unions, members of the British Rail pension scheme who were already pensioners or deferred pensioners were transferred to a special pensions section and had their rights guaranteed by the Crown. Their rights have never been put at risk and are not at risk, but that is not true for members still employed in the industry who were contributing at the point of privatisation. Their accrued rights were transferred to the section of the railways pension scheme applicable to their new employer, and a matching share of the
	assets from the British Rail pension scheme was also transferred to the relevant section, but nothing was done in those debates and negotiations, and eventually the orders, to protect their transferred rights in the event of their new employer becoming insolvent.
	The actively contributing members were also given the right to participate in the new railways pension scheme on a basis that entitled them to accrued rights for future service and which was no less favourable than the basis of the former British Rail pension scheme. They have to contribute to the scheme to accrue their rights, and so must their employer, in the normal way. Active members are also protected if they move involuntarily between railway employers. In law, they must be permitted to transfer their accrued rights to their new employer’s section of the railways pension scheme and be permitted to accrue future pension rights on the same basis as before.
	That also applies to involuntary transfers. As one franchise moves between companies, so do the pensions and the pension rights and responsibilities. A member who moves employer of his or her own volition retains the right to be a member of the pension scheme, but the right to accrue future service rights on the same basis is lost. So those protections were thought to be relatively robust at the time; transferring from the old British Rail pension scheme into the new scheme, and then, as the franchises moved and new employers took over the staff, their rights would transfer as well.
	When a railways employer enters into administration, its undertaking—the franchise—is usually transferred to another employer and, again, what happens is that the employees working for that employer are generally protected. Even when a company becomes insolvent and employees are transferred to a new company, if there are sufficient assets those are transferred and the employees are protected again. The problem we now face as a result of the Jarvis incident is what happens when an employer becomes insolvent and there are insufficient assets. That is what happened with the Jarvis workers, who were transferred to Babcock Rail or Volker Rail. Because the Jarvis section of the railways pension scheme is not in a position to transfer the accrued rights on a fully funded basis—because Jarvis never had the assets—a pension transfer could not be made at all. Instead, what the Jarvis workers now have to rely on is the pension protection fund, which does not provide what they would have gained as members of the full pension scheme.
	This group of workers accepted the assurance of the Government on privatisation that their pensions would be fully protected. They have entered employment with a new employer and have paid their contributions, and they expect the same pension as every other worker around them in the industry. They are now faced with a pension that is significantly less. I think that that is grotesquely unfair. It certainly flies in the face of the promises that were given on the Floor of the House to railway workers when privatisation was being advocated and when legislation was going through the House.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is obviously very knowledgeable about the history of the matter. Can he point to a specific assurance that was given about what would happen in the event of the insolvency of the private employer?

John McDonnell: Let me deal with that. Incidents such as insolvency are often not predicted by Government. So what happens when a policy is advocated that involves a very straightforward commitment given by Ministers? Let me, if I may, read out a statement made by the then Secretary of State for Transport John MacGregor in May 1993 at the time of the debates on the privatisation of British Rail in response to a specific discussion on the British Rail pension scheme and its future. The Secretary of State said:
	“My objective remains to preserve the security of rights enjoyed by pensioners and members while adopting arrangements to suit the new structure of the privatised industry. The proposals I am announcing today meet this objective.
	I have decided that there should be set up, under the powers granted in the Railways Bill, a joint industry pension scheme for the railways. This will be broadly on the basis set out in the consultation paper ‘Railway Pensions After Privatisation’ issued in January. The governance and administration of the joint industry scheme will continue to involve both the employers and employees in the industry. We shall be discussing the detailed arrangements with interested parties…Existing employees’ rights will be protected by statutory orders made under the Railways Bill. The benefits offered to employees must be no less favourable than those in the existing scheme. There will be no penalties for involuntary breaks in employment. The present schemes under which the employer matches additional voluntary contributions made by employees…will continue subject to the existing right of the employer to withdraw matching for new or increased contributions.
	Employees should be reassured by the statutory protection of these benefits…It is both natural and right that pensioners, pension scheme members and trustees should express their concerns and seek reassurance about pension arrangements in the privatised railway. The consultation document gave them the opportunity to do so: these decisions address those concerns and provide that reassurance.”—[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 236W.]
	John MacGregor was an honourable man who believed that he was giving every possible assurance that the existing pensions arrangements would be protected. Are we now saying that, just because there is no specific reference to insolvency in that statement, no such assurance was given in relation to those rights? If we did that outside this place, we would be accused of mis-selling a scheme.
	The employees opposed rail privatisation tooth and nail, but they were reassured by the Government that their pensions would be protected and, although they did not support the policy, they went away confident that at least their pensions would be protected. What has happened now? I think that a lot of the responsibility lies with Network Rail over how it treated Jarvis, but that is a debate for another time. It has been demonstrated that the statutory protection that workers in the railway industry thought would guarantee their pensions has proved to be illusory in the event of an employer’s insolvency. That is what the Jarvis case has demonstrated.
	New clause 7 would simply restore the protection in the specific case of insolvency. It would add a new paragraph to schedule 11 of the 1993 Act, which would apply only to an “insolvency event” within the meaning of the Pensions Act 2004. It would protect only “relevant pension rights”—namely, the rights that the member had accrued in the British Rail pension scheme and the
	rights that he or she had accrued as an employee of a successor employer, post-privatisation, but only to the extent that he or she had had no choice as to the section of the railways pension scheme in which they were accrued. If a member moves voluntarily from one employer to another, the rights accrued after that move are not protected. This relates to the involuntary movement of people when franchises are shifted and new contracts are issued.
	Obviously, we have to address the practical question of who would pay, given that the former employer would not be in a position to do so. Promises were made by the Government, and they should have been enshrined in the three orders to which I have referred. They were made to convince people that privatisation could work, and to convince employees that there would be a smooth privatisation process in which their pension rights would be protected. Having made those promises, the Government should honour them. It is the role of Parliament to hold the Government to account and to ensure that they keep their word to the electorate. This was a special commitment that was given to that group of workers during the privatisation of the rail industry.
	I do not necessarily think that the measure should be paid for by the taxpayer. The Government might think it appropriate to require all the railway employers to meet the cost of providing the protection by creating a mini-pension protection fund scheme, alongside the national scheme. Such a scheme could be funded by a levy paid only by railway employers. They have made the profits from privatisation, and they should share the liabilities that arise. The legislation passed at the time of privatisation gives the Secretary of State powers that are wide enough to enable this to happen.
	The new clause stands in its own right. It is a relatively minor amendment to the legislation, and I should like to hear a positive response from the Government. When privatisation took place, there was immense opposition to it, and immense fear among the work force about what would happen to their jobs, their conditions of work and their rates of pay. Pensions are also a critical issue for workers. Some people have referred to them as deferred pay. That is true, but they also represent a deferred sense of security in retirement and old age, and Members should not underestimate the strength of feeling among people who wish to protect their pensions. When privatisation was debated, it was understandable that Ministers seeking a smooth passage for their legislation wanted to reassure the workers in the industry that their pensions would be protected. That is why such categorical assurances were given at the time.
	Perhaps people did not think there would ever be an insolvency in the railway industry so it may not have been spelt out in the detail of the assurances the Secretary of State gave. What was certainly understood by everyone in this House listening, and by every railway worker out there, was that, no matter what happened under privatisation, at least people’s pensions would be protected.
	I believe that this House should ensure that the Government honour their commitments. I know that one Government cannot bind another and that we cannot introduce retrospective legislation—or, at least, it is frowned on—but there is a moral duty to the people
	who worked within the industry. Some have suffered badly enough as it is. As I said, they have been laid off and, as a result of intervention by Network Rail, put in contracts with Jarvis—we have called for an inquiry into that. Some people lost employment for a long period, had to scour the country to pick up work and now their pensions are affected as well.
	I urge the Government to look sympathetically on my new clause—not to look for some loophole or lack of clarity in previous debates, but to recognise that people are suffering as a result of commitments and previous Government promises not being adhered to. I do not think that is too much to ask. I also believe that we are advocating a cost-free approach. Employers in the industry would have to rise to their responsibility to protect the workers’ future pensions, and I think that would provide a morale boost to people working within the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, it would send out a message that, whatever happens—whether it be Government policy, privatisation, bringing services back in house or whatever—we could at least protect people’s pensions, if nothing else.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate. I hope the House will forgive me if I focus my response to the shadow Minister on only the first hour of his speech, as I believe everything that followed had already been covered.
	The gist of the remarks by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) was: when I was appointed in 2010, I should have looked at my in-tray, cleared it out and said, “It is essential we ensure value for money in workplace pensions.” By implication, action was needed because the previous Government, after 13 years, had not put pension savers in a position in which they would get value for money in workplace saving. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman suggested in his narrative that all the evils of pensions happened in the preceding 18 years of the Conservative Government. Again, by implication, Labour comes to power in 1997 ready to put right the failures of the previous Government; they have 13 years to have a go at it, yet the first job of a new Liberal Democrat Minister appointed in 2010 is to sort out the mess in pensions. There is, I think, a bit of a logical flaw in that argument.
	I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s psychoanalysis of me—it is cheaper than therapy, that is for sure. He said, “We do not want consultation; we want action”. That was powerful, emotional and gut-wrenching stuff, except when we look at his amendment (a) we realise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) pointed out, in the midst of a clarion-call for action, it provides that, before action, or
	“Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation”.
	When the Government do it, then, public consultation is a substitute for action, but when the Opposition call for it, it means dynamism and standing up for the consumer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be a Minister one day, but he will know that Governments are required to consult before they legislate.
	That is what we are doing, and he can be assured, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West said, that consultation is a precursor to action.
	The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said that pot follows member was not a good idea here because whereas there are not many pension schemes in Australia this country has very large numbers of them. He massively understates, however, the extent of concentration and consolidation in the pensions markets. The Office of Fair Trading has said that the four largest providers hold the majority of schemes, assets and members. The four largest providers on their own have 68% of the assets, 76% of the schemes and 61% of the members. The hon. Gentleman believes that the vast number of schemes means that pot follows member cannot possibly work because everybody is in a small pension scheme; actually, the opposite is true. Most people are in big pension schemes, which is why pot follows member works perfectly well. Consolidation is already happening—I mentioned the fall of a third in the number of medium-sized pension schemes—and, moreover, when we implement measures on scheme quality, which will include action on charges, that will trigger substantially more consolidation. So the hon. Gentleman is, in a sense, being backward-looking in referring to the large number of tiny pension schemes.

Gregg McClymont: I thank the Minister for giving way to me again: he is being very generous with his time. Is he not conflating providers with schemes? Is he not really saying that there are big pension providers, rather than schemes, in the United Kingdom? Big pension providers may service 200,000 schemes, but there will be many different schemes within their overall provision .

Steve Webb: That was powerfully put, if I may say so. However, the hon. Gentleman is trying to portray a workplace pensions sector that is ludicrously fragmented and all over the place, and in which most people are in tiny schemes. In fact, most people are in big schemes. The number of medium-sized schemes is falling, and the quality standards that we are introducing will accelerate an existing trend. Pot follows member will be even more fitting as time goes by, because we are overseeing and hastening a process of consolidation in the pensions industry.
	I will not say too much about baked beans, with which the hon. Gentleman seems to be even more obsessed than I am, but the point of the baked beans analogy is that the baked beans market works. As the hon. Gentleman said, in the pensions market the demand side is weak, and leaving everything to market forces is not the answer.
	The model that the hon. Gentleman has embodied in his amendments and new clauses is a very confused one. He seems to be suggesting that small pension pots will go off to the new aggregator schemes, which are really good, so a silly little amount of money will automatically go to a really good scheme, whereas in the case of large amounts, the quality standard will be more relaxed. I understand that his party advocates a 1% charge cap, but he wants a 0.5% charge cap for the aggregator. That would bring about bizarre circumstances in which people with serious amounts of pensions money could pay
	1% charges, but people with small amounts in a scheme that they never chose pay 0.5%. How is that coherent? I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot explain how it is coherent because it ain’t.
	We need to ensure that high quality standards apply not just to small pension pots in an aggregator, but across the board, so that when people’s pots follow them from scheme to scheme, they move from a good-quality scheme to another good-quality scheme. The hon. Gentleman quoted the National Association of Pension Funds. The association is, of course, right. If we were simply going to allow money to be transferred automatically from a good scheme to a bad scheme, we would have a problem, but because we will regulate for quality, no bad pension schemes will be used for the purpose of automatic enrolment.
	The hon. Gentleman said that nothing was happening about annuities. In fact, the Financial Conduct Authority is reviewing them. It has already surveyed the rates offered to existing customers and those offered to customers accessing rates through the open market option, and is trying to establish whether profits in the internal annuities market are too high because too few people are exercising that option. Action on annuities is not just about what my Department does; the FCA is considering the issue actively, and we are working with our colleagues in the Treasury.
	New clause 11 requires savers people to consult an annuity broker. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that that would mean that people were given advice, but annuity brokers do not give regulated advice; people must pay for that. The broker will no doubt charge a fee, and those who want advice will either have to consult someone else or pay again for the broker’s advice.
	The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East wants to require those in charge of auto-enrolment schemes to send people to brokers who may charge, so those people may have to go elsewhere for advice. He says that that must happen in order for a scheme to qualify as an auto-enrolment scheme. We consider his to be a backward-looking and restrictive model. Let me give an example. What about pension schemes that annuitise internally—which, in other words, provide the annuity themselves? They may provide a guaranteed annuity rate, but in the hon. Gentleman’s world people will still have to go off to an annuity broker and shop around, rather than taking advantage of the product that is in the scheme already. That is an example of where he is trying to be over-prescriptive. [Interruption.] He says it is all in my head; I am not quite sure what he is talking about. The point is that we are trying to provide forward-looking provision for decumulation. Annuities is one model, with deferring taking a pension, for example, or draw-down, or enabling people to swap their annuities around, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said. We need to be examining all these things, but the hon. Gentleman wants to hard-wire into primary legislation a single model for a single product, which is not the future of decumulation.
	Another aspect of the lack of coherence in the hon. Gentleman’s model of aggregators is that if he envisages
	an average transfer of £5,000, we estimate that per year the amount going to aggregators would be between £7 billion and £10 billion. Over five years, therefore, between £35 billion to £50 billion will go to these schemes. How does that affect the market? What is his model? We have a small number of what will become vast aggregator schemes. How does that relate to the active schemes that people are members of? He is taking money out of active schemes and putting it in aggregators; what does that do to the cost structure for the people who are left behind? Bizarrely, active members of a company pension will find that their costs go up if all the deferred members move out and take their money with them. The hon. Gentleman does not want to regulate the costs for the active members as hard as he does for the aggregators. I simply do not understand what his model is.

Gregg McClymont: rose—

Steve Webb: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but will he just clarify this? He mentioned in his speech a 0.5% cap for the aggregator and said, “There won’t be many of these. We can control them. We can guarantee quality. Quality equals 0.5%.” Then he says—he has said this publicly before—“The Labour party favours a 1% charge cap for schemes people are members of.” So why does he want to have half the charging level for people’s small amounts of money in an aggregator than for people’s active pension funds?

Gregg McClymont: I cannot respond at length as this is an intervention, but the Minister continues not to understand our proposal on aggregators. [Interruption.] He says, “It’s funny, that is”, but he just does not get it and I will discuss it with him further. We are very pleased the Minister takes Labour’s proposals so seriously that he is spending so much time and effort responding to them, but the aggregators would not only deal with the stranded pots. Pension providers can become aggregators if they meet governance, quality and charge standards, so it would not be deferred members from small pots alone who would be in these schemes as there would be larger schemes than that.

Steve Webb: I would love to say that clarified matters. Let me put this challenge to the hon. Gentleman. He says we do not understand his proposals, but I have not seen his proposals. He has not set out specifically his alternative proposals, and I am spending time on this is because no one is arguing about the Government amendments; it is the Opposition amendments that we are arguing about.
	I challenge the hon. Gentleman to set down in some measure of detail what exactly he is proposing and what kind of pensions market he envisages, because one of the confusing features of his vision—as it were—is that it is something like the energy market. He seems to envisage a small number of very large regulated providers who presumably get together with each other and maybe do not always have the consumer interest at heart. That is what the energy market that his party leader oversaw has delivered for consumers. I do not want to see the same thing in the pensions market.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister says he wants to take great action through a cap on charges, but after
	three years all he can do is introduce a consultation whose findings he will publish at some stage in the future. That is not a Government taking action, and he is doing that from the position of having all the powers of government at his disposal. I do not think we should take any lessons from a Government who are acting so sluggishly in sorting out the problems in the private pensions market.

Steve Webb: When the hon. Gentleman says we will publish that at some point in the future and he knows we are publishing tomorrow, we can understand why he feels vulnerable on this issue. I am simply suggesting that his reluctance to set out an alternative model shows the paucity of alternatives being offered to us.
	On a specific point, the hon. Gentleman suggested we could deal with only small pots created after Royal Assent. That is not correct. We have the power to specify a prescribed date, and that date would in the first instance be likely to be the point at which auto-enrolment began. So in the first instance automatic enrolment pots from when this began, rather than when we secured Royal Assent, would be within the scope of pot follows member. I just want to put him straight on that.

Gregg McClymont: Again, the Minister says he has a power but does not tell us how he is going to use it; that is common throughout the Bill. Will he categorically state that all pots stranded since auto-enrolment will be included within the Bill?

Steve Webb: I thought that was what I just said. Let me be clear: we want to get this thing going. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the £10,000 pot size limit. Clearly I would like to go further, and we look at a £20,000 pot size limit in our consultation document, but we have to get the thing going. May I tell hon. Members who were not here at the start of the debate that he said he had sat and watched a video of a speech of mine? I commend him for that, as watching videos of me speaking shows real devotion to the world of pensions. In my speech last week, I made it clear that we see this as the beginning of a process. The pot size limit could go up and the scope of “pot follows member” could be increased, but we envisage beginning with auto-enrolment pots. I am clear about that, and there is no ambiguity: we are beginning with auto-enrolment pots.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is not in her place, asked when further action would be taken on fiduciary duties. For the record, in case she should happen to read it later—or watch a video—I can confirm that the Law Commission’s final report on the issue will be published in June 2014. Obviously, further debate will take place at that point.
	I wish to respond to the related issues raised by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). The hon. Lady asked about the important issue of the position of protected persons, on which we have consulted and on which I hope we will shortly reach a conclusion. We think that slightly more workers are involved than she suggested, but certainly tens of thousands of workers are affected. One challenge we face is that this is not just a matter for our Department. For example, if we place a
	cost on the energy employers through the abolition of the national insurance rebate and if we exclude their employees because they are protected persons, that has the potential to feed its way into energy bills. Her party leader has a view on energy bills, as do we, but the knock-on effect of a decision we take on energy bills has to be thought through. The same applies in the transport sector, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred. If railway and other employers cannot pass on through the pension scheme the costs we are imposing on them through the ending of the rebate, that will find its way through into fare increases and to consumers. So we have to think through a wide range of consequences of these decisions. That is why this is taking a while, but I appreciate the need to get on with it.
	The hon. Gentleman said that there was a special case for the railway industry. His new clause 7 does not provide any protection in respect of any of the other privatised utilities; there is no suggestion that if any of those employers went to the wall pension protection should apply—it would just apply to the rail industry. If he feels so strongly about the justice of this issue for rail workers, why does his new clause not say that any protected person should be protected if the sponsoring employer goes bankrupt? I know his affiliation, and I have spoken to him in his role as leader of the group on rail workers, but if Parliament were to accept his new clause, we would have to deal with the question about why we did not do this for everybody else, too.

John McDonnell: I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but I find that beneath him. He knows that I have been involved in this campaign for a number of years, since Jarvis went into administration as a result of the network intervention. We faced a specific issue that could be dealt with very speedily; it does not have to await further consultation with other industries. That does not mean that I do not concern myself about other industries and other workers, but this particular campaign is related to my constituents and to a specific industry in which I have taken an interest over time.

Steve Webb: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a particular interest over time in this industry. My point is that his argument about justice—his argument that pension protection should mean not just the same terms and conditions, which was what it did mean, but protection against insolvency—should apply equally across other industries, and should not just apply to the rail industry, if that is what he believes. When John MacGregor made the promises that the hon. Gentleman quoted, he was saying that the terms and conditions of the pension scheme would be the same with the privatised employer as they were with the state employer. Subsequently, a pension protection fund was created. Jarvis paid pension protection fund levies and that is why the employees are in the pension protection fund. The three privatised railway firms paid—

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There comes a time when accuracy is important in this House. John MacGregor, as Secretary of State, gave assurances that when British Rail was privatised pensions would be protected. He said not that they would have the same protections as private companies
	but that pensions would be protected. There is a point of accuracy, so that Ministers do not attempt to mislead this House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that nobody would deliberately mislead this House—let us clear that one up. That is not a point of order but it has certainly been corrected for the record, which will be read tomorrow.

Steve Webb: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was not a correction, because what I said was not incorrect.

Lindsay Hoyle: I did not say that. I also said that the first point was not a point of order, and neither is the Minister’s.

Steve Webb: Let me reiterate: Jarvis and the other firms paid the pension protection fund levy.

John McDonnell: That is irrelevant—absolutely irrelevant.

Steve Webb: It is not irrelevant—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I understand that tensions are running high, but we will have an orderly debate.

Steve Webb: Jarvis, as an employer, was paying an insurance policy. It was paying into a fund so that if it became insolvent its employers would get the payout, and that is exactly what has happened.
	The pension protection fund was created nearly a decade ago and every year Jarvis paid in on behalf of their employees so that in the event of insolvency those employees, and those of the other two former nationalised rail industry firms who were spun off, would get protection. That is exactly what has happened. In other words, to come along in 2013 and say, “Oh no, we did not expect this to happen. We should get special treatment and we should get 100% protection,” when other people who work for private firms do not get that when they pay the protection fund levy and get a payout—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Steve Webb: Other people who work for private firms get a payout according to how the pension protection fund works.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh East, who is not in her place, talked about annuities. She seemed to think that requiring people to go to an annuity broker was the answer to the problems and I think she missed the point. We want to see a much wider range of options for people when they want to turn their pension pot into a pension income. Rather than putting into primary legislation a single model for a single product, we must ensure that people have choices so that they can choose an annuity, consider draw-down products or consider deferring and so that they can try to ensure that they get the best value for money. I certainly accept that the annuity market is not working as well as it should.
	This debate has gone on for the best part of four hours and the recurrent theme has been that when the coalition Government took power in 2010, there was a huge amount of unfinished business on automatic enrolment. What happened with small pots, charge caps, decumulation and governance had not been dealt with. The Opposition have spent the past however many
	hours asking how we could possibly not have acted on all the issues they failed to address in 13 years, but we are addressing them. We have taken effective action and tomorrow we will take a further step when, for the first time, we consider capping the charges on automatic enrolment pension schemes. This Parliament will be seen to implement vital pension reform in the state and private sectors and to be doing the job properly and I commend our amendments to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time.
	Amendment proposed to new clause 1: (a), at end add—
	‘(2) In this section—
	(a) “charges”; and
	(b) “transaction costs”
	shall be defined in regulations by the Secretary of State.
	(3) Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation, which must include the views of—
	(a) the Financial Conduct Authority; and
	(b) the Pensions Regulator.
	(4) With reference to paragraph (2)(a), any public consultation must consider the different elements which comprise charges and not just the annual management charge.
	(5) Such charges, together with any transaction costs incurred by the funds in which qualifying schemes are invested, shall be declared on an annual basis to the Pensions Regulator, which shall maintain a public register thereof.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations set the standards by which pension schemes must declare charges and transaction costs for the purposes of the register and for declaration to their members and their members’ employers.
	(7) The standards set out in regulations under subsection (6) shall be reviewed every three years.
	(8) The Secretary of State shall have power to make regulations ordering other disclosure arrangements on administration charges.
	(9) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.—(Gregg McClymont.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 232, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.
	New clause 1 added to the Bill.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day)
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Decumulation

‘(1) Any qualifying money purchase scheme must direct its savers to an independent annuity brokerage service or offer such a brokerage service itself.
	(2) Pension schemes shall ensure that any brokerage service selected or provided meets best practice in terms of providing members with—
	(a) an assisted path through the annuity process;
	(b) ensuring access to most annuity providers; and
	(c) minimising costs.
	(3) The standards meeting best practice on decumulation shall be defined by the Pensions Regulator after public consultation.
	(4) The standards set out in subsection (3) shall be reviewed every three years and, if required, updated.’.—(Gregg McClymont.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 218, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	‘Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements

Power to restrict charges
	1 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
	(a) prohibiting administration charges which are of a specified class or description, or which exceed specified limits, from being imposed on a member of a relevant scheme;
	(b) prohibiting a relevant scheme from containing provision under which administration charges which are of a specified class or description, or which exceed specified limits, will or may be imposed on a member of the scheme.
	“Specified” means specified in the regulations.
	(2) The regulations—
	(a) may make provision for the manner of, and criteria for, determining whether an administration charge is of a specified class or description or exceeds specified limits;
	(b) may provide for the determination to be made in accordance with guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The regulations may impose duties on the trustees or managers of a relevant scheme or others.
	(4) The regulations may provide that a scheme is not a qualifying scheme in relation to a jobholder for the purposes of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 if a provision of the regulations—
	(a) is contravened, or
	(b) is contravened in a way specified in the regulations.
	(5) In this paragraph—
	“administration charge”, in relation to a member of a pension scheme, means any of the following to the extent that they may be used to meet the administrative expenses of the scheme, to pay commission or in any other way that does not result in the provision of pension benefits for or in respect of members—
	(a) any payments made to the scheme by, or on behalf or in respect of, the member,(b) any income or capital gain arising from the investment of such payments, or(c) the value of the member’s rights under the scheme;
	“relevant scheme” means a work-based pension scheme of a description specified in the regulations.
	Power to impose requirements relating to administration or governance
	2 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose requirements relating to the administration or governance of a relevant scheme that must be satisfied in relation to the scheme.
	(2) The regulations—
	(a) may make provision for the manner of, and criteria for, determining whether a requirement is satisfied;
	(b) may provide for the determination to be made in accordance with guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The regulations may impose duties on the trustees or managers of a relevant scheme or others.
	(4) The regulations may provide that a scheme is not a qualifying scheme in relation to a jobholder for the purposes of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 if a provision of the regulations—
	(a) is contravened, or
	(b) is contravened in a way specified in the regulations.
	(5) In this paragraph “relevant scheme” means a work-based pension scheme of a description specified in the regulations.
	Compliance
	3 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with a view to ensuring compliance with a provision of regulations under paragraph 1 or 2.
	(2) The regulations may in particular—
	(a) provide for the Regulator to issue a notice (a “compliance notice”) to a person with a view to ensuring the person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under paragraph 1 or 2;
	(b) provide for the Regulator to issue a notice (a “third party compliance notice”) to a person with a view to ensuring another person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under paragraph 1 or 2;
	(c) provide for the Regulator to issue a notice (a “penalty notice”) imposing a penalty on a person where the Regulator is of the opinion that the person has failed to comply with a compliance notice or third party compliance notice or has contravened a provision of regulations under paragraph 1 or 2;
	(d) provide for the making of a reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal in respect of the issue of a penalty notice or the amount of a penalty;
	(e) confer other functions on the Regulator.
	(3) The regulations may make provision for determining the amount, or the maximum amount, of a penalty in respect of a failure or contravention.
	(4) But the amount of a penalty imposed under the regulations in respect of a failure or contravention must not exceed—
	(a) £5,000, in the case of an individual, and
	(b) £50,000, in any other case.
	Interpretation
	4 (1) Expressions used in this Schedule and in Schedule 16 have the same meaning in this Schedule as in that Schedule (see paragraph 17 of that Schedule).
	(2) In this Schedule “relevant scheme” is to be construed in accordance with paragraphs 1(5) and 2(5).
	Crown application
	5 (1) This Schedule applies to a pension scheme managed by or on behalf of the Crown as it applies to other pension schemes.
	(2) Accordingly, a reference in this Schedule to a person in the person’s capacity as a trustee or manager of a pension scheme include the Crown, or a person acting on behalf of the Crown, in that capacity.
	(3) This Schedule applies to persons employed by or under the Crown as it applies to persons employed by a private person.
	Overriding provision
	6 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that specified provisions override any provision of a relevant scheme to the extent that it conflicts with them.
	(2) A “specified provision” is a provision of regulations under this Schedule specified in regulations made under sub-paragraph (1).
	Other provision relating to regulations under this Schedule
	7 (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend or otherwise modify any enactment (whenever passed or made) in connection with any provision made by regulations under the preceding provisions of this Schedule.
	(2) In this paragraph “enactment” includes an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978.
	8 Before making any regulations under this Schedule, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	Amendments
	9 (1) The Pension Schemes Act 1993 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 94(2A) (right to cash equivalent)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), after sub-paragraph (viii) (inserted by Schedule 16 to this Act) insert—
	(ix) regulations made under Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] to the Pensions Act 2013;”;
	(b) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (vi) (inserted by Schedule 16 to this Act) insert—
	(vii) regulations made under paragraph 6 of Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] to the Pensions Act 2013.”
	(3) In section 101AI(8) (rights to cash transfer sum and contribution refund: further provisions)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), after sub-paragraph (viii) (inserted by Schedule 16 to this Act) insert—
	(ix) regulations made under Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] to the Pensions Act 2013;”;
	(b) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (vi) (inserted by Schedule 16 to this Act) insert—
	(vii) regulations made under paragraph 6 of Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] to the Pensions Act 2013.”
	10 In section 256 of the Pensions Act 2004 (no indemnification for fines or civil penalties), in subsection (1)(b), after “or paragraph 10 of Schedule16 to the Pensions Act 2013” (inserted by Schedule16 to this Act) insert “or paragraph 3 of Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] to that Act”.
	11 (1) Section 16 of the Pensions Act 2008 (automatic enrolment: qualifying schemes) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3), omit paragraphs (a), (aa) and (ab).
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	“(3A) See also paragraphs 1(4) and 2(4) of Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] to the Pensions Act 2013, which confer power to make regulations providing for a scheme not to be a qualifying scheme in relation to a jobholder in certain circumstances.”
	(4) Omit subsections (4) and (5).
	12 In consequence of the amendments made by paragraph 11, section 10 of the Pensions Act 2011 (qualifying schemes: administration charges) is repealed.’.—
	(Steve Webb.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 32
	 — 
	Short service benefit for scheme member with money purchase benefits

Amendments made: 5,page16,line39, leave out from beginning to ‘were’ in line 42 and insert ‘In subsection (1)(a), after “service,” insert—
	“(aa) he has at least 30 days’ qualifying service and, if he’.
	Amendment 6,page17,line1, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment 7,page17, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
	“(10) Subsections (7) to (9) apply, with the substitution for references to 2years of references to 30 days, for determining whether a person has at least 30 days’ qualifying service for the purposes of subsection(1).’.
	Amendment 8,page17,line8, leave out ‘(1)(c)’ and insert ‘(1)(aa)’.
	Amendment 9,page17,line12, leave out ‘2 years’’ and insert ‘30 days’’.
	Amendment 10,page17,line15, leave out from ‘(4)(b),’ to end of line 16 and insert ‘after “(a)” insert “, (aa)”.’.
	Amendment 11,page18,line27, leave out Clause 35.—(Steve Webb.)

Schedule 16
	 — 
	Automatic transfer of pension benefits etc.

Amendments made: 28,page88,line33, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page89.
	Amendment 29,page91,line1, leave out from beginning to end of line 10.
	Amendment 30,page93,line8, at end add—
	‘In section 256 of the Pensions Act 2004 (no indemnification for fines or civil penalties), in subsection (1)(b)—
	(a) for “or section” substitute “, section”;
	(b) after “2008” insert “or paragraph 10 of Schedule 16 to the Pensions Act 2013”.’.—(Steve Webb.)

Schedule 18
	 — 
	Pension Protection Fund: increased compensation cap for long service

Amendment made: 31,page95,line24, at end add—

‘Part 3
	 — 
	transitional provision

Interpretation
	7 In this Part of this Schedule “the commencement date” means the date on which the amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule come into force.8 Other expressions used in this Part of this Schedule have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004
	Recalculation of periodic compensation going forwards
	9 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a person if—
	(a) the person is entitled to periodic compensation under paragraph 3, 11 or 15 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004,
	(b) the compensation is restricted in accordance with paragraph 26 of that Schedule (compensation cap), and
	(c) the person first became entitled to the compensation before the commencement date.
	(2) The protected pension rate for the person is to be recalculated as if the amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule had always been in force and the recalculated protected pension rate has effect for the person as from the commencement date.
	(3) For the purposes of that recalculation, paragraph 26A(7) of Schedule7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule) has effect as if—
	(a) the references to an order made by the Secretary of State were references to the relevant old order, and
	(b) the reference to actuarial adjustment factors were a reference to the relevant old actuarial adjustment factors.
	(4) In this paragraph—
	“the protected pension rate”—
	(d) for a person entitled to periodic compensation under paragraph 3 or 15 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004, means the protected pension rate for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) of that paragraph;(e) for a person entitled to periodic compensation under paragraph 11 of that Schedule, means the protected notional pension for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) of that paragraph;
	“the relevant old order” means the order in force under paragraph 26(7) of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (as originally enacted) at the time when the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation;
	“the relevant old actuarial adjustment factors” means the actuarial adjustment factors published by the Board under paragraph 26(7) of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (as originally enacted) at the time when the person first became entitled to the periodic compensation.
	(5) Nothing in this paragraph affectsincreases already accrued under paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 in relation to periods before the commencement date.
	New cap does not generally affect old payments
	10 (1) Nothing in this Schedule affects—
	(a) periodic compensation for a person for periods before the commencement date, or
	(b) lump sum compensation for a person who became entitled to the compensation before the commencement date.
	(2) In this paragraph—
	“periodic compensation” means compensation within paragraph 26(4)(a), (b) or (d) of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004;
	“lump sum compensation” means compensation within paragraph 26(4)(c) or (e) of that Schedule.
	Survivors’ compensation
	11 When working out the annual rate of a person’s periodic compensation under paragraph 4(3), 13(3) or 18(3) of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004, take into account any effect that paragraph 9 would have had on the dead person’s rate if it were not for the death.
	Cases involving early payment or postponement of compensation
	12 Nothing in this Schedule affects the amount of—
	(a) an actuarial reduction under paragraph 25 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 in a case where a person became entitled to periodic compensation or lump sum compensation before the commencement date, or
	(b) an actuarial increase under paragraph 25A of that Schedule in a case where the commencement of periodic compensation or the payment of lump sum compensation was postponed before the commencement date (even if it continues to be postponed on or after that date).
	Recalculation of terminal illness lump sums given in the past year
	13 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a person who is alive on the commencement date if—
	(a) the person has become entitled to a terminal illness lump sum under paragraph 25E of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 at any time in the period of one year ending with the commencement date, and
	(b) the amount of the terminal illness lump sum was restricted in accordance with paragraph 26 of that Schedule (compensation cap).
	(2) The terminal illness lump sum for the person is to be recalculated under Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 as if the amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule had been in force at the time that the person became entitled to it.
	(3) For the purposes of that recalculation, paragraph 26A(7) of Schedule7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule) has effect as if—
	(a) the references to an order made by the Secretary of State were references to the relevant old order, and
	(b) the reference to actuarial adjustment factors were a reference to the relevant old actuarial adjustment factors.
	(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—
	“the relevant old order” means the order in force under paragraph 26(7) of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (as originally enacted) at the time when the person became entitled to the terminal illness lump sum;
	“the relevant old actuarial adjustment factors” means the actuarial adjustment factors published by the Board under paragraph 26(7) of Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (as originally enacted) at the time when the person became entitled to the terminal illness lump sum.
	Meaning of “the pension compensation provisions” in Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004
	14 Section 162(2) of the Pensions Act 2004 is to be treated as including a reference to this Part of this Schedule among “the pension compensation provisions”.’.—
	(Steve Webb.)

New Clause 3
	 — 
	State pension credit: phasing out assessed income periods

‘(1) In section 6 of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 (duty to specify assessed income period), in subsection (1), after “subsection (3) or (4)” insert “where the relevant decision takes effect before 6 April 2016”.
	(2) At the end of the heading to that section insert “for pre-6 April 2016 awards”.
	(3) Regulations under section 9(5) of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 may in particular be made for the purpose of phasing out, on or after 6 April 2016, any remaining assessed income period that is 5 years or shorter than 5 years.’.—(Steve Webb.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this we will debate the following:
	Government new clause 4—Preserving indefinite status of certain existing assessed income periods.
	Government amendment 13.

Steve Webb: Unlike the debate on the previous group, the debate on this short group need not detain us too long. It relates to a feature of the state pension credit system known as the assessed income period. The basic idea was to avoid the need for people on pension credit to keep reporting changes in their circumstance—the basis was that older pensioners in particular have less frequent changes of circumstance. The basic idea of the assessed income period was a perfectly reasonable one but, unfortunately, it has not worked in practice and has raised a lot of issues.
	To give an example, if someone in retirement inherits substantial wealth from the generation above them, they can continue to get pension credit for five years or even indefinitely, despite having very substantial wealth. If someone retires, has an assessed income period and then starts to draw a new stream of pension income, they can go on getting pension credit despite the fact that their living standard is well above the level of pension credit. We have given this a good go, and it was a reasonable thing to try, but in practice it has created anomalies, with payments to people who, if they were assessed on their current circumstances, would not be entitled to benefit.
	The Government have taken the view that assessed income periods should not be part of the system in the future, but we accept the need for a transition period. The amendments propose that people who already have open-ended AIPs, such as the oldest pensioners, will be able to continue with them.
	I hope I have given an intuitive flavour of the changes, but to be more precise, the purpose of new clause 3 is to provide for the abolition of the assessed income period in pension credit cases from April 2016, while new clause 4 will correct existing pension credit legislation to ensure that the provision relating to indefinite AIPs for people over the age of 80 works as intended. The effect of new clause 3 will be to limit the application of the legislation on AIPs to decisions that take effect before 6 April 2016 so that from that date no new AIPs
	will be set. It will also ensure that AIPs set before 6 April 2016 will remain valid beyond that date, thereby transitionally protecting the indefinite status of certain existing AIPs. The amendments also provide for regulations to be made for the purpose of phasing the termination, from 6 April 2016, of all AIPs of five years or shorter in length that were set before that date. Amendment 13 concerns the commencement of the new clause and ensures that the amendment will come into force on the day that Royal Assent is obtained. I commend new clause 3 to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Preserving indefinite status of certain existing assessed income periods

‘(1) If this section comes into force before 6 April 2014—
	(a) section 105(6) of the Pensions Act 2008 (which provides that section 9(6) of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 ceases to have effect on 6 April 2014) is repealed, and
	(b) in section 9(6)(a) of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 (duration of assessed income period for certain transitional cases to be treated as indefinite), after “brought to an end” insert “, on or after 6 April 2009 but before 6 April 2014,”.
	(2) If this section comes into force on or after 6 April 2014—
	(a) section 105(6) of the Pensions Act 2008 (which provides that section 9(6) of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 ceases to have effect on 6 April 2014) is repealed and is to be treated as never having had effect, and
	(b) in section 9(6)(a) of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 (duration of assessed income period for certain transitional cases to be treated as indefinite) as restored by this section, after “brought to an end” insert “, on or after 6 April 2009 but before 6 April 2014,”.’.—(Steve Webb.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Review into state pension in relation to women within 15 years of state pension age

‘(1) The Government shall conduct a review in relation to women with a limited national insurance contribution record, who relied on a husband’s national insurance contributions, and would under previous arrangements have accrued a benefit based on such spousal contributions.
	(2) The review shall determine the costs and benefits of permitting women within 15 years of state pension age as at 6 April 2016 to retain their accrued rights if this would provide a better outcome than under the state pension provided for by this Act.
	(3) Such a review shall be conducted within six months of Royal Assent of this Act and a copy of the report must be laid before Parliament.
	(4) The review shall consider whether similar provision should be made in relation to sections 9 and 10 of this Act.’.—(Sheila Gilmore.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Sheila Gilmore: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6—State pension entitlement for women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953
	‘(1) Women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 have the right to choose to receive their state pension and associated benefits under the new state pension system, set out in Part 1, from its introduction.
	(2) The Government must ensure information about the full range of entitlements under the old state pension rules and the new state pension is available to allow women in subsection (1) to make a comparison of total weekly income.
	(3) The responsibility for making a choice under subsection (1) lies fully with the individual.’.
	New clause 8—Review in relation to women born on or after 6 April 1951
	‘(1) The Secretary of State shall conduct a review to determine whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new state pension arrangements established by this Act.
	(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the review within six months of Royal Assent of this Act and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.’.
	New clause 13—Pensionable age: differential effect in England, Wales and Scotland
	‘Part 2 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament containing an assessment of the differential effect and impact of the pensionable age in England, Wales and Scotland due to varying levels of life expectancy and gross value added.’.
	Amendment 1,page10,line1, leave out Clause 20.
	Amendment 35,page11,line34, Clause 24, leave out ‘An’ and insert
	‘With the consent of the trustees, an’.
	Government amendments 2 and 3.
	Amendment 37,page11,line40, Clause 24, at end insert—
	‘(c) a scheme in respect of any of its terms which relate to persons protected under the terms of—
	(i) the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990;
	(ii) the Electricity (Protected Persons) (Scotland) Pension Regulations 1990;
	(iii) the Electricity (Protected Persons) (Northern Ireland) Pension Regulations 1992;
	(iv) the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1984;
	(v) the London Transport Pensions Arrangements Order 2000;
	(vi) the Coal Industry (Protected Persons) Pensions Regulations 1994; or
	(vii) the nuclear industry employees protected by Schedule 8 of the Energy Act 2004.’.
	Government amendment 4.
	Amendment 36,page12,line10 [Clause 24], at end insert—
	‘“trustees or managers” has the meaning given in section 178 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and regulations made thereunder.’.
	Government amendments 14 to 20.
	Amendment 34,page79,line5, Schedule 14, leave out paragraph 11.
	Government amendments 21 to 24.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the issues that has come up in the course of all the debate about the single-tier pension is the decision that the Government have taken to bring
	to an abrupt end to the provisions that previously existed for women in particular—I shall talk primarily about women, although men could be in this position—to be able to derive a pension or years towards a pension from the contributions of their spouse. That dates back to a different world. When the state pension system was set up in the post-war period, there was an assumption that the standard pattern for married people was that one person, normally the man, would be the main breadwinner, and the woman would spend considerable periods out of the labour force, and perhaps not even work at all after marriage. Indeed, although they were about to go, there were still marriage bars on certain types of employment, so time out of employment was not just a question of choice; it was sometimes a question of necessity.
	Things have changed and, although it can still be a necessity, for many women the amount of time out of employment can be very short. The arrangement in the original proposals was that a woman could receive a derived pension from her husband’s contributions—currently approximately 60% of the full state pension—or receive benefit if she was widowed or divorced. For someone widowed after retirement who was receiving only the 60% pension—sometimes referred to as the married couples pension when both bits are put together—it would be increased to a full single person’s pension, regardless of whether she had made contributions during her working life. For those who are divorced, there is currently provision in the system to inherit and carry over a spouse’s contribution record if it is better than one’s own. That can be beneficial to women, and some men, in building up a pension record.
	Other changes that have taken place include crediting certain types of contribution that are not entirely financial. As well as the credits people receive during periods of unemployment when they are claiming benefit, successive Governments have introduced credits for periods of child care and for caring for other relatives, and that can make up some gaps. There are still some people—a decreasing number, without a doubt—who will end up in a position where they do not build up sufficient contributions in their own right. If the right to obtain these so-called derived benefits is taken away, there will be a group of people, primarily women, who, post-2016 when the new arrangements come in, will have less than they would have expected to get before that date. They will be in a worse position than they would have been previously, and that will have all sorts of consequences.
	People have reasonable expectations of the rules. Age UK gave an example of someone who had specifically asked the Department for Work and Pensions for advice on whether she should start making contributions relatively late in her working life. She was told not to do so, because she would not be able to work to receive nearly as much as she would be getting in any event. That advice was given in good faith and at the time she accepted it in good faith, but it is now too late for her to make up the difference.
	The Government estimate that there are 40,000 women in this position. I am not sure whether there is certainty about that figure, because I do not know whether a full survey has been carried out. However, 40,000 is not a huge number. New clause 5 asks for a full review to
	ascertain how many women are in this position and what the cost would be of allowing them to continue to benefit from derived rights for a transition period—it would not be for ever.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Lady have any idea how much money, on average, these ladies might be losing?

Sheila Gilmore: I do not know off the top of my head, which is why I am asking for a review. We might be talking about 40,000 women who clearly will not be getting a full pension, but certain of them will have made some contributions; it is not that they will have no contributions. The Work and Pensions Select Committee looked at this and recommended transitional arrangements for those within 15 years of the state pension age when the new arrangements came into force. It is not for ever, it would not go on and on, with a very long tail; but it would provide for those who quite reasonably made plans on the basis of particular expectations.
	I have heard two arguments from the Government. The first was a generalisation about how the world had changed. Yes, of course it has changed, and we are not talking about most or all women doing this for ever. Just saying, “Well, the world’s changed”, is not a good enough answer to the fact that some women will suffer detriment if transitional arrangements are not put in place. The second argument was that apparently—I am not sure any figures have been offered up—an increasing number of these women were living abroad. It conjured up images of women much younger than their husbands and living abroad—I do not know whether the Minister had Filipino brides in mind. Nevertheless, it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the DWP to ensure that people do not take undue advantage. Like I said, these arrangements would not last for ever.
	There are a variety of reasons why somebody might not have contributed. They might have made a positive choice not to contribute or they might have been doing voluntary or care work before credits were allowed or without appreciating that they were allowed—we know that a lot of people are eligible for carer’s credits who have not claimed them. There are a variety of reasons. Others will have been in very low-paid or short-hours part-time work and earning below the level of contribution, and they might have concluded that it did not matter too much because of the derived right.
	We debated this matter in Committee and I hope that the Government will this time be prepared to accept my new clause. Then, when we have carried out the review, a decision could be made about whether to proceed with transitional arrangements.

Peter Bottomley: I hope the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) will forgive me if I do not follow her line of debate, but we have less than 50 minutes left to deal with something that is complicated, important and a matter of justice.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for saying in the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth is about fairness and justice, and I am going to argue for a significant review of what we do with overseas pensioners. I hope the House will forgive me for reading out a paragraph from Lord Hoffmann in the Carson case concerning regulation 5 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975:
	“The general rule, subject to limited exceptions, has always been that social security benefits are payable only to inhabitants of the United Kingdom. A person ‘absent from Great Britain’ is disqualified: section 113(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. But there is a power to make exceptions by regulation. Regulation 4 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975/563) (deemed to have been made under the 1992 Act) makes such an exception for retirement pensions. But regulation 5 makes an exception to the exception. In the absence of reciprocal treaty arrangements, persons ordinarily resident abroad continue to be disqualified from receiving the annual increases.”
	The House might expect that pensioners abroad who do not get the increases are the exception; were the House to think that, it would be wrong. Some 650,000 overseas pensioners get the increase, and they include pensioners in countries such as the United States and Jamaica. More than 500,000—it could be 530,000 or 570,000—do not. They are predominantly in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan, with Yemen and Japan being two others in the top ten. No one can claim that there is rhyme or reason in that.
	Before I was elected to this House, the then MP Julian Ridsdale had a debate in 1972 answered by the Minister, Paul Dean, who said that these matters were governed by reciprocal treaties and that the Government were keen on having such treaties. If the Prime Minister today were to invite various Government Departments to contribute to a whole of Government review—which is what I would ask for—he would find that the Foreign Office now says openly that it does not want reciprocal agreements, in part because some of the old dominions and Commonwealth countries provide increases to their pensioners in Britain without us agreeing to do the same thing there. That does not strike me as a good argument not to have reciprocal agreements; it strikes me as a good argument for having them. Were he to ask for this review, the Prime Minister would probably hear from the DWP, “Is this the year when it is a priority to give increases to those who are not resident in this country?”
	The reason this is relevant to today’s debate is that the Secretary of State, in clause 20, purports to exclude overseas pensioners from getting increases under the new scheme except—although it does not quite say so—where regulations can be made that would allow them to do it; the exception to the exception. I will spare the House analysis of the provision in clause 18, which is too complicated even for me to be able to put across in a way that anyone else would understand. In clause 20, the Government are proposing deliberately to continue the discrimination against some of our overseas pensioners. There is no rhyme or reason. Being a member of the Commonwealth does not bring someone in or put them out, although it is what I call the old dominions who are affected.
	The DWP might ask why we should do it now. The argument that Julian Ridsdale was putting forward in 1972 was about a far smaller number of people. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to say that 2% of our pensioners are abroad, that is a dramatically higher proportion than in 1972, and it will grow. People who will earn their rights to pensions in this country are a far more mobile population, both those coming here and those going out. We know that, with the expansion
	of the EU, those countries with whom we would not have necessarily claimed a very close connection over generations will come in. Without wanting to stir up some of the popular newspapers, the new members of the EU will not be excluded from getting increases in pensions, whether their people come here and work and earn entitlement or whether people who are resident in or nationals of our country go and live, for example, in Bulgaria or Romania. They will get the increases. Those who may have retired to South Africa shortly after the 1947 Pensions Act do not.
	The reason is that, in 1947, we were not expecting to get inflation. If we did not have inflation, we would not have the problem. If the Government say that they will not provide exceptions to clause 20 and that no pensioner overseas will get an increase, at least we would have consistency. But that is not what the Minister is proposing. It might be helpful if he could confirm that either now, or if and when he comes to speak.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend know whether the requirement to uprate in the European Union countries is a European requirement that the Government can do nothing about or a Government choice?

Peter Bottomley: The Government chose and Parliament endorsed that we would have free movement of people and of benefits in this sense, but the Secretary of State will no doubt be able to answer my right hon. Friend with greater certainty. The essential point is that as a country joins the EU—or even EFTA—the entitlement to increases in pensions comes with it.
	When preparing my thoughts on this matter, I might have anticipated that the Prime Minister would say that he would give consideration to calls for a wider review of the issue. I might also have expected him to conclude that he was not minded to pursue such a review at this time. That is the gentlest form of saying no that I have come across.
	I suspect that, as and when we extend voting rights to British nationals living overseas, either for a period of 15 years or for even longer, as many other countries do, our Members of Parliament who represent those overseas resident voters will start putting the pressure on, and that change will come. The Prime Minister might be anticipating that. He might see the sense and justice of such a change, but, given his position, he has to say no to a lot of popular causes. Perhaps the justice element for which is so rightly praised in the Commonwealth has not quite come to his mind yet.
	In fact, I received a letter from the Prime Minister about half an hour ago confirming what I had anticipated. He has said that
	“the case for not departing from the position of successive Governments is clear.”
	I have already pointed out how the position has changed in respect of the reciprocal arrangements. His letter goes on:
	“To do so would cost hundreds of millions of pounds at a time when the pressure on a welfare system is considerable and when we are asking many people who live in the UK to make sacrifices.”
	That could be an argument for cutting off increases for all overseas pensioners, but that is not going to happen. The anomaly will continue. It has carried on from
	1972 to 2013. If I am still here in 20 years’ time, will Ministers still be trotting out the same arguments that they used in 1972? I jolly well hope not.
	I pay tribute to the leaders of the International Consortium of British Pensioners in Canada and Australia. They have had work done by Oxford Economics to make the case for the health care savings. We all know that the majority of costs to the national health service are incurred by people in the last years and weeks of their lives. Which of the people living overseas are the most likely to return to this country for their end-of-life health care? I suggest that it is those living in the United States, whose insurance might have run out and who cannot meet the costs, and people in Europe who might want to return to this country to be treated in a health service they know and in a language they are used to. I doubt that many people would come back from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Canada.
	The health care question was what prompted us to call for the whole of Government review. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who came with me last week when the Prime Minister very kindly gave us the opportunity to put some of these points to him.

Roger Gale: My hon. Friend has already paid tribute to the leaders of the campaign in Canada and Australia. Jim Tilley has told us of the case of an English lady in Australia who is living on £6 a week. The rest of the money that she has to live on is provided by the Australian Government, because our Government cannot give it to her. Does that make my hon. Friend feel proud?

Peter Bottomley: I find that shaming.
	One of the reasons to be active in public service is to identify injustice and to work against it. It might take months, years or decades, but this is a fight for which I would like to see more support from the Opposition and from those on my own side. My hon. Friend has mentioned Jim Tilley. I want to mention John Markham, the director of public affairs for the International Consortium of British Pensioners, who is based in Toronto, in Canada. He has pointed out:
	“Approximately 10% of all pensioners live abroad, roughly 1 million people. Of that million, 50% receive annual increases to their state pension, and the other 50% do not, solely based on country of residence.”
	That arbitrary, historical decision is unjustifiable.
	I am not going to quote back to the Minister what he said about this before he became a Minister. Some people have to go through that embarrassment, but I do not want to subject him to it. I will say, however, as we approach Remembrance Sunday and Armistice day, that the countries in which we have shared war memorials are those most likely to be affected. They are the countries whose people served in the former British empire and Commonwealth armies, and those people are the ones who are not getting the increase.
	John Markham goes on to say:
	“The recent select Committee on the new single tier Pension Bill declared it to be an anomaly that should be fixed.”
	I have mentioned the Oxford Economics report. The Department for Work and Pensions might say that that was just a small survey, and that the benefits would take years to accrue. Well, the sooner we start, the better. The argument for doing it is not that it will pay this country, but that it is right.
	I could go through the other arguments used by Julian Ridsdale, but there is restricted time for the debate, and it would be interesting to hear what the Labour Front-Bench team has to say. I know, too, that others wish to speak on this issue and to other amendments in the group. Let me declare the best judgment at the end of this debate. We will say no to clause 20, but we will not force a walk-through Division. That is a way of illustrating what we feel, without unduly taking up the House’s time, when Third Reading is also ahead of us. I hope the House will understand that.

Caroline Lucas: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has spoken passionately about the importance of fairness and justice. I believe that those very same principles underlie the issue I want to raise this afternoon. I want to speak to my new clause 6, while confirming my support for new clause 8. Those new clauses both relate to the group of women who will not qualify for the single-tier pension, whereas men with the same date of birth will.
	One of my constituents, Catherine Kirby, has been a passionate and tireless champion for women in her position. Understandably, she feels that she and others in her situation are faced with a dual disadvantage of being subject to an increase in state pension age under the 1995 Act, while being denied eligibility for the single-tier pension. Not all, but some of these women will be left with a lower weekly state pension compared with men of the same age. No wonder my constituent, like many others, believes this creates unnecessary and unjustifiable inequality and discrimination.
	The Minister has said in the past that women in the position of my constituent should defer, but for those on low incomes who are unable to work and do not have a convenient pot of money, that is not an option. He has explained in the past that because the new system excludes additional benefits such as for bereavement, it is not possible for the Government to tell women what would be best for them. For some women, however, that is simply not relevant to their situation. They already know that they would be better off—by £15 a week, in Catherine’s case, which is significant.
	The Minister has said that, over a lifetime, most of these women would get more than the average man with the same date of birth, but theoretical lifetime averages are simply irrelevant to the difficult financial situation faced by my constituents and others in the real world. It is their weekly pension income that matters, and I believe that that is what should occupy our attention as their representatives.
	I will support Labour’s new clause 8, which calls for a review of whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new pension arrangements. That is not my preferred option, however. Not all will definitely lose out, and I do not think we necessarily need a review to find a solution that works for the relatively small but important number of women who may lose out.
	My new clause 6 simply gives these women the right to choose to receive their state pension and associated benefits under the new state pension system set out in part 1 from its introduction in April 2016, if they judge it to be in their best interest to do so. It would not require the Government to tell them what to do, merely to ensure that information about the full range of entitlements under the old state pension rules and the new state pension is available to allow women to make a comparison of total weekly income. The responsibility for making a choice would rest fully with the individual.
	I believe this group of women deserve a much better deal, and if that means upgrading to the single tier, that should be permitted. If the Government do not do that, it will be an example of blatant discrimination. It would not be difficult to remedy the situation and it would make a huge difference to the women involved. This group of women certainly deserve better. They are the generation who campaigned for equality for women. They began their working lives being discriminated against; the Government can and should give them the right to be included in a new single-tier pension to ensure that they do not end their lives feeling discriminated against, as well.

Roger Gale: Jim Tilley’s old friend, the British widow living in Australia on a frozen pension of less than £7 a week, is not a statistic. She is the difference between what is right and what is wrong. If this country cannot do what is right, I have to say that I feel a great sense of shame. The denial of the money to people who have in many cases served their country and fought for it—some of their friends and families have died for this country—and who have worked here and paid their taxes, is indefensible. Their case is morally right.
	It cannot be right for a British expat living on one side of the Niagara Falls to have a frozen pension while, just across the water on the other side of the falls, in the United States, another pensioner is receiving an increase every year. It cannot be right that this country is prepared to pay benefits to all and sundry who come to the United Kingdom from wherever—from within or without the European Union—but continues to deny people who served this country the pension to which I believe they have a right. No one is seeking back payment, because that would be financially unrealistic, but I believe that the time has come when we must right this wrong.
	The Prime Minister has defended the overseas aid budget, and I support him entirely in that. If this country, which is still one of the wealthiest in the world, cannot afford to pay some of the poorest people in the world the overseas aid that we are now paying, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. However, if we cannot afford also to look after our own, we ought to have a deeper sense of shame.
	I shall not press for a Division on the amendment. However, I hope very much that the message will go out from here to another place, and that their lordships will deal with this issue, because dealt with it must be.

John McDonnell: I wholeheartedly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the hon. Member for
	Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I think that there are injustices in the Bill that need to be addressed, and my amendment 35 seeks to do that as well.
	The amendment returns us to the issue of the commitments that were given to people on privatisation. The Minister seemed to use a “divide and rule” tactic when he asked why I was taking the issue up purely on behalf of railway workers, as opposed to workers overall. There is a railway estate in my constituency, and I have taken an interest in the industry for nearly 40 years. I know what a sense of grievance exists among railway workers. The promises that they were given on privatisation are now being torn up by the Government. I do not like that “divide and rule” tactic—I want the same protection for all workers—but we can deal with the issue of railway workers tonight if the Government are so willing.
	This is what John McGregor, the then Secretary of State, promised in 1993. He said:
	“Existing employee rights will be protected by statutory orders made under the Railways Bill.”
	He described those rights as “indefeasible”. He went on to say:
	“There will in addition be specific safeguards, in franchise contracts, to cover the transfer of pension funds when a franchise changes hands…Orders for setting up new schemes, transferring funds and protection of existing employees will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses.
	He gave that assurance to members of all parties in the House. He continued:
	“Orders relating to schemes and funds will be the subject of statutory consultation with the trustees.”—[Official Report, 20 May 1993; Vol. 255, c. 235-6W.]
	That commitment was given, in the House, to all Members of Parliament, to all members of the pension fund and to all workers in the industry, but clause 24 will tear it up. The clause will allow employers who sponsor the railway pension scheme and the Transport for London pension fund to amend the rules to increase member contributions, reduce member benefits or both, and those who will be affected are the people whom we have described as protected persons. Employers will be able to do that without the consent of trustees or scheme members, and without taking any cognisance of the views of the House. That is unacceptable.
	A promise was given by Conservative Ministers to those workers and members of the pension fund, and to future members of the fund, and that promise was accepted throughout the House. It was understood that changes in circumstances might require changes to be made in pension schemes, but the promise of that added protection reassured people. John McGregor was right to say that such additional protection was needed. He said that trustees would be consulted, that the House would then take a view and, through an affirmative resolution, would be able to reach a decision, and that the trustees’ views would be laid before the House. However, the clause enables employers to tear up schemes, increase contributions, and reduce benefits.
	It is also significant that there are 106 different employers in this sector now. If one changes the scheme, what happens when franchises are taken over? What happens when employees seek to change their employment from one company to another? We are introducing immense complexity into the overall industry, which I think will undermine the pensions protections that this House gave assurances on in 1993. This is a matter of morality
	and honour. To introduce this measure flies in the face of every undertaking made to these workers. My amendment would at least ensure that the trustees are involved in any decisions about the future of pensions in their sector. To be frank, I do not think it is much to ask for this House to ensure, and enforce, that Governments abide by their promises.

Gregg McClymont: I want to speak in particular to our new clause 8 and amendment 37. We are now discussing the provisions in this Bill that relate specifically to state pensions rather than private pensions, and it might be of some significance that the issue of protected persons and protected pension schemes is emerging in this context.
	We have listened to the very powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and one cannot but feel that there is a specific set of circumstances around the privatisation of nationalised industries. My hon. Friend has eloquently focused on the railways, but amendment 37 deals with the issue of former nationalised industries in the round, and there are also energy schemes and some coal schemes.
	We are in a curious situation. The Minister is giving himself the power to keep the promise made to the members of those schemes, but he has not yet said whether he will use that power to honour that promise. This is a Pensions Bill and there are 50,000 or so remaining members of these pension schemes, so it is curious that he has not yet said what he intends to do. Will he do so in his reply?

Katy Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that these privatisations were hugely contentious and there was huge opposition to them, and the pension promises were made by politicians to try to ensure that these things happened? That puts those situations in a different category from many of the others we are talking about.

Gregg McClymont: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that there is a specific set of circumstances around these pension schemes. I am certainly not saying that accruals and the terms and conditions of a pension can never be changed in any circumstances, but there is a specific set of politically charged circumstances to do with the privatisation of these industries. Specific undertakings were given to the members of those schemes to encourage them to accept, if not actively support, the privatisation of the industries in which they worked. I urge the Minister to tell us this evening, if he can do so, whether he intends to use the power he is giving himself in the Bill to honour the promises made to the members of those schemes. If he will not do so, we will force a Division to test the opinion of this House on amendment 37, which would mean that the promises made to the 50,000 or so men and women in those protected schemes were met.
	I am conscious of the time and allowing the Minister appropriate time to respond to the broader debate. I noted closely what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said about her new clause 6 and her belief that the 700,000 or so women in the group born between 1951 and 1953 will not get the new state pension, because they are the last pension cohort
	before the equalisation of the pension age, whereas men of precisely the same age will get it. Let me put it in simple terms: if there were twins, one male and one female, in that age cohort, the male twin would get the new state pension in 2016 but the female twin would not, having retired a little earlier. Such issues do emerge when we are involved in pension reform. The Minister and I have gone back and forth on the matter on a number of occasions, and I will not anticipate his arguments because we have gone through them some time before. However, we have to look at the issue in the context of a view that has grown up among many women that this Government’s attitude to their pension provision is not as generous as they believe it should be.
	When considering the 2011 legislation, we had to deal with the issue of a significant number of women having very little time to prepare for retirement and short notice. They would have had to work for longer but some of them would have had only five years to prepare for that. They were five years from when they thought they would be retiring and then found out that they might have to work for seven more years. I am pleased that the Minister made a concession on that, although he did not go as far as we wanted. That group of women—a slightly different group from those we are dealing with here—who were also approaching retirement, felt that they were being unfairly treated. Not only did they feel, rightly, that they were being unfairly treated, but we have also had to deal with the Minister’s approach to auto-enrolment, which is excluding more than half a million women—and rising—from the benefits of auto-enrolment, because of the raising of the threshold for auto-enrolment in line with the personal allowance. A general sense has developed that this Government do not quite get it with women and pensions.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman’s new clause 8 calls for a review. Obviously, having a review is not the same as having an opinion, so what does he actually think should be done?

Gregg McClymont: I certainly think the Minister should undertake a review.
	The perception I am talking about has developed, so let me quote something that the Minister might be aware of. I cited it a couple of years ago, but he has probably forgotten.

Julie Hilling: Before my hon. Friend moves on, I wonder whether he would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my constituent Maureen Davenport. The Minister said that the maximum state pension under the new system will be “significantly lower” than under the current system. He also said:
	“In some ways the new system will be less generous for those who retire after April 2016”.
	That is somewhat different from the fanfare and the Government saying that these new pensions would be wonderful for everybody.

Gregg McClymont: I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. There has been an issue of this Government, certainly in the early stages, overselling some of the things they are doing.
	The Government would be doing themselves a favour by undertaking this review, given the sense among significant groups of women that the Government do not care
	enough about their pension provision. In 2005, in the days when the Conservative party was still trying to say that it had changed, the Prime Minister said:
	“If you put eight Conservative men round a table and ask them to discuss what should be done about pensions, you’d get some good answers…but what you are less likely to get is a powerful insight into the massive unfairness relating to women’s pensions.”
	It is in that context—the sense that the Government have so far had their eye a little off the ball in respect of treating women fairly on pensions—that I intend to test the House’s opinion on our call for a review by the Government of these provisions.

Anne Begg: These amendments can all be categorised as trying to do something for those who have lost out as a result of the Bill. Many of the issues were picked up by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions during our pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and it is a little disappointing that the Government have not always taken our advice on how they might be able to sort out the outstanding problems. One such problem, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), is that of inherited rights, usually those of women who expected to get their part of their state pension through their husbands’ contributions. Those who are nearing retirement would have no opportunity to meet the de minimis rule of 10 years if they were to start to make contributions now. Our suggestion was that there should continue to be some transitional arrangements for those within 15 years of state pension age.
	Although it does not fall within this group of amendments, there is also the issue of those people who fell below the national insurance contribution threshold, particularly those who have had two jobs that together would have added up to take them above the threshold but have not. Perhaps the Minister could give us some hint of what might happen to that group, who are again predominantly women and will continue to lose out. Of course, there is also new clause 6, which makes a request on behalf of the group of women born between 6 April 1951 and 1953. They obviously feel hard done by.
	There is also the group who have so-called frozen pensions, who have been so eloquently described this afternoon. We did not recommend that the Government should roll back the clock for those who have frozen pensions, but we should not import into a brand-new system the anomaly that those in Canada have their pensions frozen whereas those in the United States do not. That did not seem fair to us as a Committee, and we hoped the Government would act.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for the contribution that her Committee continues to make. Let us face it, those of us who have been in this place for more than one Parliament have been hearing about frozen pensions for all that time—some of us for many years. Rather than our trying to solve it today through this Bill, is it not time that all the parties sat down together to discuss what commitment could be made for the next Parliament, regardless of who gets in, rather than the next Government being able to say “Well, the last Government didn’t do it, so we’re not going to either”?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need short interventions.

Anne Begg: I think that may have been the problem with this Government and with the previous Government. Any Government who come in do not want to do it. The Select Committee’s straightforward recommendation was that the new system should not contain the same anomaly as the old system. I still stand by that. I hope the Government are listening and will change their mind and I suspect that the House of Lords will have quite a lot to say on this subject.

Hywel Williams: Let me say first of all that I support amendment 1, which I was very glad to put my name to.
	My new clause 13 delays introducing part 2 until the Secretary of State has reported an assessment of the differential effects and impacts of the pensionable age in England, Wales and Scotland. People are now living longer and the better-off live longer than the worse-off, who work more years and start working earlier. The latest evidence suggests that the gap is widening and that is certainly the case as regards the differences between England and Wales. Wales has the lowest gross value added of the UK nations and regions. Welsh workers in general are less able to save for their pensions, which means that many people in Wales are reliant on the state pension. Life expectancy in Wales is also lower than it is in England. In my constituency, life expectancy is 78.3 years for men whereas in Dorset it is 83 years. Wales also has the appalling legacy of large-scale de-industrialisation and subsequent long-term worklessness. That means that many people have broken employment records and a disproportionate number might not qualify for a pension because of their lack of contributions.
	The Government have stated that they intend to review changes in life expectancy every five or six years, and I think Lord Turner suggested that they did so every seven years. I have proposed a new clause to encourage Ministers to ensure that the panel reviewing life expectancy looks further and also considers Britain’s human geography of low incomes, no incomes, long-term unemployment, sickness and disability. That broader inequality must be addressed, as it will certainly persist.

Steve Webb: In that short time we covered a wide range of issues, and in the 10 minutes or so remaining, I shall try to respond to as much as I can, although I apologise in advance to hon. Members whose amendments I do not reach. I shall deal with amendments in the order in which they were raised.
	New clause 5 was dealt with by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and touched on by her colleague, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). It addresses the position of the derived rights of people who are shortly coming up to pension age and the fact that we are ending the ability to derive pensions from a spouse. The spirit of the new clause implies transitional protection, but we have included comprehensive transitional protections in the system.
	In particular, those who paid the married woman’s stamp and as a result have a poor contribution record will, notwithstanding the fact that we are ending derived rights, continue to be able to receive a 60% spouse’s pension or a 100% widow’s pension, because that was the basis of the deal that they did with the state. They signed the married woman’s stamp, which said, “I’ll pay
	less NI, but I understand that when I reach state pension age I’ll be able to get a pension based on my husband’s contribution record.” We took the view that because that was the basis of the deal, we could not change the rules. We have made sure that the limited number of women in that position are protected.
	The issue is whether we should go further. It is worth bearing in mind that to get a £66 pension, which is the derived pension for a married woman, because of the rate of the single tier pension, such a woman needs 16 or 17 years in the system. For someone who has spent their life in this country, it is very difficult not to have achieved that or thereabouts.

Sheila Gilmore: There is an acceptance that for most people it would be unusual for that circumstance to arise, but according to the Department’s own figures, some women are in that position.

Steve Webb: Indeed. The hon. Lady is right. Some women are in that position, but a significant proportion of them have had very limited contact with this country. This is the point that she touched on. Derived rights arise to people who have never even been to the country. They can get a 60% pension or a widow’s pension because their spouse is part of the UK pension system. She is asking us to keep, for another 15 years, an extraordinarily complex bit of the system rolling into the new system. We are trying to deliver a simple and effective new state pension system and we have already introduced transitional protection for the most obvious group, the married woman’s stamp pensioners, which we think needs to be protected. We could have kept the whole of the old system rolling on for another 15 years, but that would have created enormous complexity when we are trying to move to a simpler system.
	Were we to follow new clause 5 and the Select Committee’s recommendation and choose 15 years as the cut-off, we could be as sure as anything that we would be under judicial review for someone who was 16 years shy of the line. In other words, if we have a cut-off date, we must have an objective basis for it, and we can find no objective basis for choosing 15 years. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South that because 10 years is the de minimis, 15 years is a bit more than 10. I get that, but so is 16 or 14.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said that someone some years ago was told not to buy missing years and now it is too late. I stress that the ability to buy missing years has been substantially relaxed by HMRC so people can buy back as far as 2005-06 on relatively favourable terms. Even by the end of the decade they will still be in a position to buy back missing years. If they have spent the money and they do not have it any more, they cannot do it, but that aside, the ability to buy back missing years still exists. Although buying 10 years costs a lot of money, very few people will be starting from zero. So to reach the 10-year de minimis would not necessarily be a huge outlay. Many will be over that level already and for those who are not and who have been in this country, the chance to buy one or two missing years will be important.
	What we are trying to do is, yes, to recognise where we need transitional protection, but we want to avoid
	such great complexity that we recreate the complex old system for well over a decade in the new one. That is why we reject new clause 5.

Peter Bottomley: Did not the Minister’s last point—that we do not want to continue the kind of discrimination that we had in the past—answer why he should accept amendment 1 and drop clause 20?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend, as ever, is sharp on these matters. Amendment 1, which stands in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), would delete clause 20. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, that would do nothing for any of the overseas pensioners who have contacted us as their MPs; it would only remove the freezing for single-tier pensioners. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) understands that point, but I just want to be clear that if we voted for the amendment, all we would be doing is creating a new anomaly.
	In a sense, the Chair of the Select Committee urged us to create that new anomaly. She said that we cannot defend the old one and that we should at least not carry on with it, but by doing that we would create a new anomaly. It is not just about which side of the Niagara falls one happens to live on, because single-tier pensioners would get indexation but nobody else would. I think that we all know what would happen: we would end up back in court. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West referred, quite properly, to the extensive legal background to the issue, because it has been tried and tested by the International Consortium of British Pensioners in a range of courts, and all have found that in many cases what the Government are doing is implementing the law of the land as it has stood for decades.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West and for North Thanet went to see the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to them for doing so. The hon. Member for Worthing West referred to the reply he received today from the Prime Minister—I am pleased that he replied in advance of the debate—who stated that, having reflected on their arguments, he did not feel that a further review was appropriate at this point. Obviously, the context he referred to is the £700 million cost of indexing those pensions. The hon. Member for North Thanet said that they were not asking for that to be backdated, but I speculate that as soon as we start indexing pensions and stepping them back up to where they would have been, the next court case will come when someone says, “Hang on a minute. Since you froze my pension I have missed out on X amount of money, so I expect that to be paid back as well.” These wedges have a knack of having thin ends. The cost of addressing this, at £700 million a year, is already substantial, but backdating would lead to far more substantial costs, which is difficult to justify at present.

Kate Hoey: As another signatory to amendment 1, I am disappointed by the Prime Minister’s response. Will the Minister at least admit that he personally feels that this is a terrible injustice that will have to be addressed sooner or later, because the longer we leave it the more difficult it will be?

Steve Webb: I was asked about the issue when I appeared before the Select Committee, and I said that I sympathised with the pensioners we were talking about.
	I commented that my sympathy would butter no parsnips, meaning that it would not be worth a huge amount to the people involved, but I was vilified for using that phrase. I am not quite sure what to say, but I sympathise with the point that was made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West gave an example of someone on a pension of a few pounds a week being topped up by the Australian Government. I do not know about the individual case, but in general if all we did was increase that pension, we would not necessarily increase the pensioner’s standard of living, because all that would do is take money out of what they get from the Australian Government. If we are concerned about their standard of living, increasing their pension in a means-tested system would not necessarily help.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked about giving women between 51 and 53 a choice, and when the shadow Minister was asked for his opinion, he said that it was that we should have a review. Obviously that plays to the gallery and sounds sympathetic, but it is not actually suggesting a solution. The complexity that the hon. Lady and I have talked about is not so much that we could not give people all the information, because we could, although it is complicated to put across; the problem is that nobody knows what their future is. A woman could choose to take the single-tier pension on day one, which would look like the right thing to do because she would get more than she does under the current system, but if her husband died the next day she would not get a derived widow’s pension and she would have made herself worse off as a result.

Caroline Lucas: I take the Minister’s point, but my point is that it should be for that woman to decide. Yes, there is a risk, but she is better placed to make the judgment than he is. Many women would want that change, and he has not given a good reason why it should not happen.

Steve Webb: In addition to the issue of people who will subsequently be bereaved is that of people who will flow on to savings credit, and nobody can possibly know whether, at some point during the course of their retirement, they will move on to that. Although I understand the concerns that have been raised, that group of women have actually benefited from the triple lock that we have introduced. Far from doing them down, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has suggested, we have improved their pension position. On his more general point about the position of women in the pension system, this whole Bill is about improving that position. That is why I urge the House to reject the amendments and to support the Bill.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that, under the procedure of the House, amendment 1, which would remove clause 20, will not be called because of the guillotine?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not calling it. Unfortunately, that is the procedure of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Review in relation to women born on or after 6 April 1951

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall conduct a review to determine whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new state pension arrangements established by this Act.
	(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the review within six months of Royal Assent of this Act and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.’.—(Gregg McClymont.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 231, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 24
	 — 
	Abolition of contracting-out for salary related schemes etc

Amendments made: 2,page11,line36, leave out ‘those members’ and insert ‘some or all of the members to whom the amendments apply’.
	Amendment 3,page11,line37, at end insert—
	‘( ) The power may be used to make amendments that will apply in relation to future members and correspond to the amendments being made in relation to current members.’.—(Steve Webb.)
	Amendment proposed: 37,page11,line40, at end insert—
	‘(c) a scheme in respect of any of its terms which relate to persons protected under the terms of—
	(i) the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990;
	(ii) the Electricity (Protected Persons) (Scotland) Pension Regulations 1990;
	(iii) the Electricity (Protected Persons) (Northern Ireland) Pension Regulations 1992;
	(iv) the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1984;
	(v) the London Transport Pensions Arrangements Order 2000;
	(vi) the Coal Industry (Protected Persons) Pensions Regulations 1994; or
	(vii) the nuclear industry employees protected by Schedule 8 of the Energy Act 2004.’.—(Gregg McClymont.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 230, Noes 290.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 24
	 — 
	Abolition of contracting-out for salary related schemes etc

Amendment made: 4,page11,line42, at end insert—
	‘“current member”, in relation to a scheme, means a person who is a member of the scheme at the time that the power is used (and “future member” is to be read accordingly);’.—(Steve Webb.)

Clause 46
	 — 
	Regulations and orders

Amendment made: 12,page24,line8, at end insert—
	‘(e) regulations under paragraph 2 of Schedule [Work-based schemes: power to restrict charges or impose requirements] or regulations under paragraph 7 of that Schedule that amend a provision of an Act, or
	(f) the first regulations under paragraph 3 of that Schedule,’.—(Steve Webb.)

Clause 48
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: 13,page24,line32, leave out ‘This Part comes’ and insert ‘Section [Preserving indefinite status of certain existing assessed income periods] and this Part come’.—(Steve Webb.)

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Transitional rate of state pension: calculating the amount

Amendment made: 14,page28,line17, leave out from ‘if’ to end of line 21 and insert—sections 46 and 48A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 were ignored, and for the purposes of calculating the amounts referred to in section 45(2)(c) and (d) of the Contributions and Benefits Act any earnings paid to or for the benefit of the person in respect of contracted-out employment were treated as if they were not in respect of contracted-out employment.
	(i) sections 46 and 48A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 were ignored, and
	(ii) for the purposes of calculating the amounts referred to in section 45(2)(c) and (d) of the Contributions and Benefits Act any earnings paid to or for the benefit of the person in respect of contracted-out employment were treated as if they were not in respect of contracted-out employment.
	‘(2) “Contracted-out employment” means employment qualifying a person for a pension provided by a salary related contracted-out scheme, a money purchase contracted-out scheme or an appropriate personal pension scheme (and expressions used in this definition have the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993).’.—(Steve Webb.)

Schedule 12
	 — 
	State pension: amendments

Amendments made: 15,page48,line27, at end insert—
	‘In section 71 (overpayments - general), in subsection (11), before paragraph (a) insert—
	“(za) state pension or a lump sum under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2013;”.’.
	Amendment 16,page53,line16, at end insert—
	‘The State Pension Credit Act 2002 is amended as follows.
	In section 7 (fixing of claimant’s retirement provision for assessed income period), in subsection (6)(a), after “benefit under” insert “Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2013 or”.’.
	Amendment 17,page53,line17, leave out ‘of the State Pension Credit Act 2002’.—(Steve Webb.)

Schedule 14
	 — 
	Power to amend schemes to reflect abolition of contracting-out

Amendments made: 18,page77,line40, at end insert—
	‘( ) The regulations may make provision about the calculation of those amounts, including provision requiring them to be calculated in accordance with specified methods or assumptions.’.
	Amendment 19,page78,line28, leave out ‘relevant’.
	Amendment 20,page78,line35, leave out ‘relevant’.
	Amendment 21,page79,line8, at end insert ‘and supplementary matters’.
	Amendment 22,page79,line10, at end insert—
	‘Regulations under this Schedule may confer a discretion on a person.’
	Amendment 23,page79,line10, at end insert—
	‘Information
	(1) Regulations may require the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme to provide information requested by an employer in connection with the powers given by section 24(2).
	(2) The regulations may provide for section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 (civil penalties) to apply to a person who fails to comply with a requirement.
	(3) In this paragraph “managers”, in relation to a pension scheme (other than a scheme established under a trust), means the persons responsible for the management of the scheme.’.
	Amendment 24,page79,line16, after the second ‘a’ insert ‘current’.—(Steve Webb.)

Schedule 15
	 — 
	Bereavement support payment: amendments

Amendments made: 25,page82,line17, leave out ‘sections 27 and 28’ and insert ‘Part 3’.
	Amendment 26,page83,line8, leave out ‘section 27 or 28’ and insert ‘Part 3’.
	Amendment 27,page83,line11, leave out ‘section 27 or 28’ and insert ‘Part 3’.—(Steve Webb.)

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Bereavement support payment: prisoners

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a person is not to be paid bereavement support payment for any period during which the person is a prisoner.
	(2) “Prisoner” means a person (in Great Britain or elsewhere) who is—
	(a) imprisoned or detained in legal custody, or
	(b) unlawfully at large.
	(3) In the case of a person remanded in custody for an offence, regulations under subsection (1) may be made so as to apply only if a sentence of a specified description is later imposed on the person for the offence.’.—(Steve Webb.)
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Third Reading
	Queen’s consent signified.

Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	One of the problems on Report is that we get back into the weeds and the detail and lose track of the big picture. I think we can all be proud of producing a Bill that will be seen by history as a lasting and valuable reform to the pensions system, even if I say so myself.
	To begin on a note of consensus, I thank the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and its Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who is in her place, for its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, or at least the parts relating to the single-tier pension. We are grateful for that input and made changes in the light of its recommendations, including putting the start date in the Bill and setting the maximum and minimum qualifying period at 10 qualifying years. We have discussed further some of the Committee’s recommendations as we have proceeded. We are grateful for its constructive and swift scrutiny of the Bill.
	The reason for the Bill is that we have a state pension system still grounded in the models of the second world war, a system where men went out to work and women depended on men, and a system of mind-numbing complexity that made it impossible for people to plan rationally for their retirement. Each change by successive Governments has been made with the best of intentions, but, grafted on to the previous lot of changes, they left
	people with a system that nobody could hope to understand. That mattered in its own right, but it matters particularly in a world of automatic enrolment if we are to expect another 10 million people to save, in some cases, relatively small amounts for their retirement. They have to be able to do so confident that they will not see their hard-earned savings means-tested away. That is why the single-tier state pension, a single, simple decent state pension set above the level of the basic means test, is such a fundamental reform.
	The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been supportive of this principle from day one. I am grateful to him and to my colleagues in the Department for the fact that the coalition has been able to introduce this reform, which is long overdue and will, I believe, stand the test of time. While we have had our differences with the Opposition, I am grateful to them for their support of the principle of the single-tier pension. We all want to see a pension system that is not constantly chopped and changed, but stands the test of time. I believe that the single-tier pension, subject to any further refinements their lordships might wish to make, will indeed stand the test of time and will provide a firm foundation for retirement saving.
	The Bill does not only deal with the single-tier pension. Part 2 brings forward the increase in the state pension age to 67 and sets out a process for dealing with these things in a more rational and measured way. We envisage that as life expectancy increases, the majority of that time will be added to working life, but a period will be added also to retirement. It is a measured, balanced and systematic approach that will allow people to plan for their retirement in a way that all too often they cannot.
	Part 3 reforms the bereavement support payment, which we have not been able to discuss today, and which is designed to focus support for bereaved families on that point immediately after bereavement and in the year thereafter, when bereaved families have told us they need the most support and cash. That is the purpose of the reform.

Martin Horwood: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Bill, which is an important, historic and long-overdue change in the pension system, but will he acknowledge that charities such as Winston’s Wish, based in my constituency, and the Childhood Bereavement Network have expressed concerns about the bereavement support arrangements in the Bill, particularly for parents who still need that support after one year—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is meant to be an intervention, not a speech. It is unfair on the other Members waiting to speak. In fairness, Mr Horwood, you ought to give a little more consideration and make shorter interventions.

Steve Webb: The charity in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Winston’s Wish, was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and we take its concerns seriously. I stress that what we have put in place is a structure of reform that will involve us actually spending slightly more over the coming years on support for bereaved families, but there is a debate to be had about how long support should last. For various reasons, going beyond a year raises difficult issues. For example, a short-term benefit can be disregarded for
	universal credit, whereas a long-term income replacement benefit almost certainly would not be. By delivering the money in this way, therefore, the lump sum is tax-free and the short-term payment is not counted against people’s universal credit, whereas a long-term payment would be, meaning that bereaved families might end up getting less support were we to extend the period. So there are trade-offs and reasons why these balances have been struck.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will know that as the Bill is drafted, and moving towards its final phase in the House, the bereavement support payment does not apply to Northern Ireland. Will he clarify whether, were it to be introduced by the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would be paid for centrally?

Steve Webb: I would be happy to provide the hon. Lady with the clarification she seeks, either while I am still at the Dispatch Box or subsequently, if that would be helpful.
	Part 4 of the Bill, which occupied the majority of our time in the House, deals with automatic enrolment and one the many issues not addressed until this coalition Government came to power—the issue of small stranded pension pots. We anticipate that there could be tens of millions of small stranded pension pots, which is not something any of us want. I think that the prospect of the pot-follows-member system, under which people change jobs and the small pension pots go with them and build into what I have called a big, fat pot, is a better model. It will engage people with pension saving and result in people knowing where their pensions are and getting better value for annuities. That will be of great value.
	It would be fair to say that a Bill such as this does not just happen, but depends on the work of an army of officials with expertise in both state and private pensions, on parliamentary counsel and on the many stakeholders who have given us advice and encouragement and enabled us to refine the Bill. I put on the record my appreciation to all of them.

Julian Sturdy: Like the Minister, I support the Bill, but I have constituents concerned about the 35-year rule, as they fall a few years short of it. There is genuine concern for them. What reassurances can he give me on this issue?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has caused a little confusion, but I can reassure him that although the single-tier pension is based on a 35-year contribution, 35 years buys someone a £144 pension, so each year has been valued at a more generous rate than the 30 years for the £110 basic pension. Under the new system, nobody will lose out from the change because we compare someone’s entitlement under the current system with their entitlement under the new system, and their foundation amount going forward is the higher of those two amounts. If the move to 35 years prejudices any of my hon. Friend’s constituents, they will get the figure they would have got under the current system, and if it benefits them, which it will in many cases, they will get the higher figure. I hope that that offers him the reassurance he seeks but I am happy to respond to him in writing.

Julie Hilling: Is the Minister saying that those people who fall short of the 35-year rule will receive their £144 a week pension or that, for life, it will be less than that?

Steve Webb: To be clear, someone with 30 years and no SERPS under the current system gets 30 30ths of £110, a basic pension. Under our system, they get 30 35ths of £144, which is more. The fact they have not got 35 years does not matter. They get a bigger pension. It does depend on how much SERPS someone has, which is why I say that some will get more. But no one will get less because our starting point for the calculation is the better of the two numbers. The move to 35 years for people already in the system cannot give them less pension than they have already built up but does give them the opportunity to build up more.
	The opportunity to talk about the Bill is enticing and I could go on at great length, but the key point is that notwithstanding the differences we have had on detail, this is a Bill of which the House can be proud. It introduces—for the first time, essentially, in 50 years—a single, simple and decent state pension that provides a firm foundation for auto-enrolment. It rationalises the process of raising state pension ages. It reforms the bereavement support system. It gives us a private pension system that is fit for purpose for the world we are moving into and it is with considerable pride that I commend it to the House.

Gregg McClymont: When the Minister first came to the House in January with his statement on the Government’s plans for a flat rate state pension, I suggested that the devil would be in the detail and that there would be winners and losers from such a substantial reform. Inevitably, that has proven to be the case. I think we have to give the Minister credit for taking the Bill through its various stages. It is a complex Bill; certainly some of its consequences and implications are complex.
	The Minister has decided—with some justification on his part—that he sees a hard and fast wind-up of the second state pension and the move to a flat rate state pension as the best way to proceed. At the same time, the Minister says that the Bill makes private pensions fit for purpose and gives a firm foundation for auto-enrolment. That would be a fair characterisation of the Minister’s comments at Third Reading.
	If we reflect for a moment—usually Third Reading is a time to do that—the Minister deserves credit for taking forward the consensus created by the Turner commission, which, set up by the last Government, had three important aspects in particular: to start dealing with the issue of longevity; to start rebuilding the additional pensions savings pillar that decisions of previous Conservative Governments had damaged significantly; and to get a simpler state pension. That is the context in which the Minister has proceeded with his Bill and taking forward that consensus means that he deserves significant credit.
	In any Bill such as this, there will inevitably be kinks and things that need to be sorted out, but there is a lack of balance in the Bill. The Minister has been very clear and put into statute everything that will happen in terms of the state pension. In terms of the other side of
	the equation—private pensions via automatic enrolment for the 10 million people who are currently going through that process—the Minister says he has to do a lot of things, but a lot of them remain to be done. The Minister is giving himself powers in various areas but without specifying what he intends to do with those powers. I suggest that while we can welcome the move to a flat rate state pension, there will be more work for the House to do in terms of keeping the Minister on the right track regarding how the private pension system interacts in a coherent and comprehensive fashion with the flat rate state pension.
	The Minister rather generously suggested that Labour Members had a vision for the private pensions market. He went on to say that he did not agree with it, but it turns out that in one respect, he does. He seems to have come round to Labour’s view on the need to take tough action to cap pension charges. As I mentioned earlier today, it was just over a year ago that he said that the Leader of the Opposition was scaremongering when he drew attention to the problems in the pensions market, yet we have heard the Minister using tough language today on the need to sort out the market, and on having a consultation on a price cap. The details of the consultation will be produced tomorrow, and we await them with great interest. We welcome the Minister across to the side of right and justice on the issue of a pensions price cap.
	The Bill has thrown up a number of questions on the two essential parts of the pension system—state pension reform and the pillar of additional pension saving—and many of them have been dealt with effectively. However, questions remain about the pensions market side of the equation and about additional pension savings. Let us not forget that the new flat-rate state pension will not provide most people with the kind of income they will need and expect in retirement. The burden will therefore be on the new auto-enrolment pensions to deliver the necessary additional income. We believe that the Minister still needs to do a significant amount of work on this, either by using effectively the powers he has given himself or by bringing further proposals to the House.
	In taking forward the Bill, the Minister has taken significant steps forward in the state pension sphere. There will be losers, however, and he has not said much about them. He has inevitably focused on the winners in the flat-rate state pension reforms. However, we do not oppose the Bill. We believe that the principle of a flat-rate state pension is sensible, but if the Minister really wants both parts of the pension system to interact cohesively and effectively, he will need to act fast to reform the dysfunctional private pensions market.

Julie Hilling: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I want to speak up on behalf of Maureen Davenport and the many other women who have contacted me about what is happening to their pensions. Let me start by quoting Maureen Davenport, a retired head teacher. She says:
	“I have worked all my life and paid taxes and other contributions, as required. I also have an occupational pension. I have just turned sixty years of age and I am fully aware of the Pensions Act 1995 which twice deferred the age at which I could access my state pension. What I am currently told is that I am now in the age bracket where I am not able to access the new flat rate higher
	pension as I was born between 5 April 1952 and July 1953. As is said by many in the media, I am one of many women facing a ‘State Pension Double Whammy’: deferred pension and a potential loss of nearly £40 per week for life. It would seem logical and fair to have grouped all women who have a deferred pension into the higher flat rate pension rather than penalise this age group. I feel very strongly that I have, once again, been penalised at a time when I cannot affect my retirement income and have very little voice and opportunity to affect change.”
	Maureen is typical of the many women who have contacted me, and they are just a few of the 720,000 women who will be worse off as a result of the Government’s changes to the state pension.

Steve Webb: In the event that the record might suggest that the hon. Lady’s constituent will be worse off, I want to confirm that the only change we have made to her constituent’s pension is to introduce the triple lock, which will give her more generous indexation than she would have had. That is the only change that we have made to that lady’s pension.

Julie Hilling: My understanding is that that is not the only change: my constituent will not be able to access £144 a week because the second state pension has been done away with and she will not be entitled to that money. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will tell me that my constituent will receive the equivalent of £144 a week. No, she will not receive that, so she is being penalised by this action, because she will not be able to receive her second state pension. [Interruption.]
	I will continue to make progress. Like me, these women are angry and upset because they have done the right things all their lives, yet will be disadvantaged in comparison with a man born on exactly the same day as they were.
	This is not the only issue that hurts women. Raising the number of necessary years for national insurance contributions to 35 again disproportionately hits women. We know that women are the ones who normally take time off to look after children and, indeed, to look after ageing parents and ageing parents-in-law. This Government will undo the good work done by the last Labour Government to improve the lot of women’s pensions, with a further 100,000 fewer qualifying for a full pension. This is particularly unfair to those who are close to retirement age, who will not have the opportunity to make up the extra years—unless they work well into their 70s.
	I wrote to the Minister about Maureen and my other constituents. The letter I received back was illuminating and, frankly, complacent. Let me quote some of it:
	“It is important to note that we are not proposing simply to increase the pension from £110 per week for today’s pensioners to around £144 week for new pensioners…Future pensioners will simply build up towards a flat rate pension of around £144—there will be no additional State Pension on top of this figure, so the maximum State Pension attainable under the new system will be significantly lower than under the current system. I should also add that in some ways the new system will be less generous for those who retire after April 2016.”
	The letter went on to say:
	“While women born shortly after your constituent may receive a single-tier pension, they will have to wait several months longer than your constituent before they can start to draw a pension. Furthermore, the average entitlement for women reaching State Pension age shortly after the new system’s introduction is projected to be £131 per week and not the illustrative single-tier full rate of £144 per week. In comparison, women reaching State Pension age shortly before the new system is introduced will receive an average of £125 per week under the current system, made up from a combination of basic and additional State Pension.”
	It seems clear to me that women born in that age bracket will be disadvantaged, yet the Government announced their proposed changes with a grand fanfare about how much better off all pensioners would be under the new system. They have failed to tell people, particularly women, that some of them would be worse off. I just wonder why everything this Government do seems to make things worse for women, who are hit by so many things—hit twice as hard, for example, by the Budget and three times as hard by other Government actions.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Lady explain why the triple lock made things worse for women?

Julie Hilling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course the triple lock affects everybody; it does not just affect women. Some of the changes, however, affect women only. That is my point. It is not that this Government are doing nothing—I applaud the triple lock—but I deplore the fact that whenever the Budget and other measures are taken, it is often women who suffer. Women are worse affected, as they are on this pensions issue.
	I finish by asking why the Government are trying to turn the clock back to times when things were worse for women than for men. This Government continue to act in that way, which greatly disappoints me.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

[Relevant Document: 15th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xv, Chapters 2 and 3.]

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 12566/13, a draft Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-operation (Eurojust), and No. 12558/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); agrees with the Government that the UK should not opt in to the draft Regulation on the Eurojust at this time and should conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting into the Eurojust Regulation, post adoption, in consultation with Parliament; and further agrees with the Government that the UK should not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
	On 17 July, the European Commission formally proposed the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office and reforms to the existing European Union body, Eurojust. This triggered the UK’s opt-in protocol. The Government have been clear that we will not participate in the EPPO. As is clear from the motion, the Government also recommend that we should not opt into the new Eurojust proposal at the start of negotiations, but should conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting in post-adoption.
	As the coalition agreement makes plain, we will put the United Kingdom’s national interest at the heart of every decision that we make on whether to participate in new European Union crime and policing measures. Our law enforcement and prosecution agencies must work closely with their counterparts in other European countries to combat the threat of cross-border crime. That does not mean, however, that we should sign up to new EU legislation that is not in the UK’s national interest.
	I am sure that the House is clear about our position on the European public prosecutor’s office. As was established during a thorough debate in the House only a week ago, the Commission’s EPPO proposal is fundamentally flawed on many levels, not least in failing to pass the subsidiarity test. I am pleased to say that there has now been a sufficient number of votes in member states’ national Parliaments—including the House of Commons last week and the other place last night—to result in the issue of what is termed a yellow card, which means that the Commission is now required to review its proposal.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome what the Minister has just said about the number of votes that will ensure that a review will take place. Will he confirm that, if the Government were minded to proceed with the opt-in—which I am glad they are not—that would require the endorsement of the British people, given the provision that any extra powers going to Brussels requires their endorsement through a referendum?

James Brokenshire: That is absolutely correct. The proposal for the creation of a European public prosecutor was framed specifically in those terms, and it would
	therefore require the endorsement of the public. I think that that is because, owing to the significant impact that it would have on the criminal justice system, the change would be so significant and fundamental—for reasons that I shall explain shortly—that it would require the backing not just not of Parliament but of the public.
	The flaws in the EPPO proposal frame the context in which we must also consider the Eurojust proposal. The reforms proposed to Eurojust would involve deep connections with the EPPO, because the legal base for the EPPO requires it to be created “from Eurojust”. The Commission has sought to reflect that by creating operational, management and administrative links between the two bodies. That includes the exchange of data, including personal data; automatic cross-checking of data held on each body’s IT system; and Eurojust’s treating any request for support from the EPPO as if it had been received from a national competent authority.
	At a time when we do not know what the EPPO will look like—given that the Commission must now review its proposal following the yellow card—let alone how the relationship between it and Eurojust might ultimately be defined in either text, it would be irresponsible in the extreme for us to risk binding ourselves to the European public prosecutor through our participation in the new Eurojust proposal. That would be a needless risk, given that we can review our place in Eurojust on its adoption.

Alan Beith: Does the Minister not think it particularly unfortunate that when the functions performed by Eurojust are so necessary and so valuable, our ability to co-operate in that mechanism should be impaired by its becoming interlocked with a proposal with which we disagree?

James Brokenshire: That is an important point. As my right hon. Friend will know, the Government believe that the existing structure for Eurojust works well, and provides for effective practical co-operation in dealing with cross-border criminality. I shall develop that point further during my speech.
	We also need to consider what the coalition programme says about preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system when deciding whether to opt into a new justice and home affairs proposal. The new Eurojust proposal would create mandatory powers for national members—powers which would allow it to require coercive measures at a national level. This House will already be aware that we have expressed concerns about any such powers being granted to Europol, the EU police agency, and our concerns hold true in this regard too. The proposed text goes further in explicitly requiring that those based in The Hague would be able to insist that national authorities take investigative measures in certain circumstances. That could, for example, include requiring them to issue a search warrant in the UK. That would cut across the division of responsibilities and separation of powers between police and prosecutors in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It also fails to take into account the role of the independent judiciary in ensuring that certain coercive measures are granted to police in appropriate circumstances. Moreover, the proposals would conflict with the role of the Lord Advocate in Scotland, who has the sole, ultimate responsibility for determining investigative action in Scotland. That would be undermined by the proposed powers.
	These are not matters of mere technicality. They are about fundamental aspects of our systems of law and would require wholesale and unjustified changes in order to be implemented. They would also conflict with the principle that operational decisions are best made as close to the operational level as possible, and would disrupt the operational independence of our law enforcement officials and prosecutors.

Lady Hermon: Has the Republic of Ireland agreed to sign up to Eurojust and the European public prosecutor’s office, in which case can the Minister assure the House that the UK’s reluctance to agree to either of them would have no negative impact on the very good working relationships between the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Republic of Ireland has said it will not be opting into the new Eurojust measure at this point in time because of concerns it has. That underlines that the UK is not in any way isolated on this matter. There are genuine and real concerns about the Eurojust measure, in large measure because of the interconnection with the EPPO. Various Parliaments around the EU do not support this measure, as shown by the yellow card having been issued in relation to the EPPO proposal.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for being so clear in identifying real problems with both proposals, and I urge him to dig in. We do not want these changes and I am glad he is standing up for us.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support he offers for the Government position. We have clearly set out genuine and real issues in relation to both these measures challenging some of the fundamental principles and aspects of our criminal justice system.
	We also have concerns about the risks of reducing member states’ influence under the proposal’s revised governance arrangements. For example, the Commission has proposed the creation of an executive board with a very narrow composition, including the Commission itself, that would, among other things,
	“prepare the decisions to be adopted by the College”—
	the college being the body on which all member state national members of Eurojust sit. Moreover, the Commission has not proposed the creation of a management board along the lines of that which oversees Europol, which we think is better suited to effective governance of such agencies. In short, the proposal’s governance arrangements are unsound.
	Fundamentally, we do not consider that the new Eurojust proposal is even needed at this time. The current legislation is still undergoing a peer evaluation which will not complete until next year, and the Commission has not put forward a convincing case as to why the new proposal is needed. There is not even a specific impact assessment from the Commission for its Eurojust proposal.

Pete Wishart: The Minister mentioned the Lord Advocate of Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? What did they say to him about the Eurojust proposals?

James Brokenshire: Consultation has taken place with the Scottish Government and with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to keep them apprised of the examination of this measure and to highlight the significant issues at stake. From the outset, this Government have made clear their opposition to a European public prosecutor’s office, for the reasons I have enunciated this evening. I do not think that there is any surprise about the steps that have been taken or, because of the fundamental nature of the objections that I have highlighted, any fundamental objection to the proposals I am setting out and to our seeking the House’s authorisation in the manner we are tonight.
	The only rationale for the Eurojust proposal seems to be that in order for an EPPO proposal to be brought forward the Commission had to take into account the treaty requirement for it to be established “from Eurojust”. Our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors already work closely with Eurojust as it currently operates; this House will be aware that we are part of the current agency. They value the support it provides, but they must retain discretion to make decisions at a national level. Indeed, the Government value the current Eurojust arrangements, which support judicial co-operation arrangements, helping to co-ordinate serious cross-border crime investigations and prosecutions. The case of the murders in Annecy in France in early September 2012 demonstrates the value of the current Eurojust arrangements. The UK and French national desks at Eurojust were instrumental in co-ordinating activity that led to a joint investigation team, and in clarifying the legal and procedural options in each country. That is why we are seeking to rejoin those arrangements as part of the 2014 opt-out decision.
	We also take seriously our commitment to tackling fraud against the EU’s budget, but we believe that the most effective approach is prevention, not the creation of a new EU prosecutor. The UK has a zero-tolerance approach to all fraud, with robust management controls and payment systems in place that seek to prevent incidences of EU fraud. We have welcomed recently agreed changes to EU payment procedures and the reform of OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud office, to improve the reporting systems and investigations. Once they are fully in place they will support existing and future UK investigations and prosecutions.
	The Commission’s approach with the proposals under consideration today is, therefore, unnecessary and, as I have set out, the content raises substantial concerns. That leads us to conclude that we should not participate in the new Eurojust proposal at the start of negotiations. We will instead undertake to play an active role in negotiations on both Eurojust and the EPPO, seeking amendments to the Eurojust regulation to meet our needs while engaging in discussions on the EPPO to protect against any attempt to bypass our non-participation through the back door of Eurojust. At the end of negotiations, we will thoroughly review the Eurojust final text and actively consider opting in—in consultation with Parliament—on the basis of that final assessment.
	If the final text remained unacceptable and we were not able to participate in it, there would obviously be risks for our longer-term participation in Eurojust. Depending on what was finally agreed, an assessment would need to be made as to whether we could remain within the old arrangements, subject to the outcome of
	the separate work on the 2014 decision, or whether the institutions would seek to eject us from Eurojust and we would need to seek alternate co-operation arrangements. Given that we do not expect to have sight of the final text much before the middle of 2015, it is hard to speculate on the final outcome, particularly in the light of the recent developments of the yellow card having been issued in relation to the measure for the EPPO. What I can reiterate is that we will work to get the text into a place where it is able to meet our significant concerns.

Alan Beith: Over the considerable period in which the subject can be discussed, can we not seek allies among our fellow member states from those who recognise that different legal systems with different distributions of powers within them must be recognised by any EU-wide arrangement and that the text should therefore be changed?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his contribution and I know that he was consistent on that point during our debate on subsidiarity last week. That view has been expressed by a large number of national Parliaments across the EU and it is now for the Commission to reflect on that message in the context of subsidiarity and on whether there are more appropriate ways, as we would argue, to deal with the issue of combating fraud in the EU.
	As I have already said, Ireland has announced its intention not to exercise its opt-in to the new Eurojust proposal at the start of negotiations and, of course, Denmark cannot participate in post-Lisbon justice and home affairs measures such as this. All member states have a shared interest in ensuring that the final proposals work with all member states’ criminal justice systems, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has said, rather than adopting the Commission’s unworkable one-size-fits-all approach.
	Let me conclude by making clear our commitment to the current Eurojust arrangements and our intention to negotiate to protect those arrangements, and our view that as the proposal stands it poses too high a risk to our criminal justice systems to opt in at this stage. Today’s motion is in the national interest and I urge the House to support it.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for his characteristically thorough and detailed explanation of the motion.
	Tonight the House is discussing the two issues of European co-operation on justice and home affairs: Eurojust and the European public prosecutor’s office. If anyone is feeling a sense of déjà-vu, that is because the House discussed the EPPO this time last week. Indeed, there was a rare moment of unity when those on both sides of the House agreed with the Government, the previous Government and the European Scrutiny Committee that the creation of the EPPO did not meet the test of subsidiarity and that the UK should therefore opt out. In government, Labour secured an opt-out from the EPPO and in opposition we support the Government in continuing to use that opt-out. We have also heard that the yellow card has now been issued.
	Given the degree of unity in the House and as we debated it at length last week, I do not intend to dwell on the subject of the EPPO. I note what the Minister said about the links between the EPPO and Eurojust, but I think that we should particularly consider Eurojust.
	To recap, Eurojust was established in 2002 and in 2001 the EU Commission conceived its role as
	“facilitating cooperation between Member States and contributing to proper coordination of prosecutions in the area of serious, and organised, crime.”
	Its concern is so-called “annex 1” crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism and financial crimes. Those are serious crimes that constantly evolve and adapt. Increasingly, they cross borders and require co-operation between different jurisdictions. The importance of Eurojust to the UK is underlined by the fact that there have been 1,459 requests from EU member states for co-operation with Britain through Eurojust since 2003, with 190 requests made in 2012 alone. It is therefore a little disconcerting to see the Government playing the hokey cokey—we are in at the moment, but now we are opting out although, in principle, we might be back in again in the future.
	The primary functions of Eurojust have been and will continue to be the facilitation of co-operation between member states. Eurojust is required to respond to any request from a member state and to facilitate co-operation. That role means that Eurojust must inform member states of investigations and prosecutions that are occurring in a different member state but affect the member state; assist the competent authorities of the member states in the co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions; provide assistance to improve co-operation between member states; co-operate and consult with the European judicial network in criminal matters; and provide operational, technical and financial support to member states’ cross-border operations and investigations, including joint investigation teams.
	The key thing to remember is that Eurojust seeks to support member states in conducting investigations, unlike the EPPO, which seeks to undertake the prosecutions itself. The distinction is vital and the aim of the British Government should be to continue that element of Eurojust.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Lady talked about the hokey cokey of the Government’s position. Can she be clear whether the Opposition advocate that the UK opt in now, based on the draft regulation as it stands, with all the supra-national transfers of power entailed in it?

Diana Johnson: I shall come later in my remarks to what I think the Government should have been doing leading up to this point—making sure that the aspects that they were concerned about were discussed. I shall put a series of questions to the Minister about how many conversations and dialogues took place with the EU to try to get the regulation in a form that was more acceptable to the Government.
	As Eurojust is based on co-operation, it places obligations on members to co-operate with joint investigations, and these obligations are set to increase. I shall come back to that. If the Government are serious about tackling human trafficking, terrorism or financial crime, for example, they need to be serious about working with
	European partners, but I am concerned that the Government seem to be sitting on the sidelines. Their current position appears to be that they would like the UK to stay in Eurojust as it is now, but they are content to let everyone else get on with a new Eurojust, which they are not part of, but which they hope they might get back into in the future. What we should do is work with our European partners to get a Eurojust system that works for us.

Mark Reckless: I find it difficult to take the hon. Lady’s point in respect of what the Government are doing. Is she implying that we should opt in now, without knowing what will be in the regulation, in order to seek to influence it?

Diana Johnson: I shall come on to some of the issues that the Government should have been considering in the lead-up to the motion today, but we will not oppose the motion. However, we have questions about how we got to this point and whether there could have been a proper negotiation with Eurojust that we might have supported. We have never supported the EPPO. That was very clear in the debate that we had last week.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Has the hon. Lady ever tried to have a conversation on these issues with Commissioner Reding? It is very much like talking to a brick wall which, if it is moving at all, is moving away from one’s own position. If she had ever had such a conversation, she would understand the difficulty that the Government might have on occasion.

Diana Johnson: Clearly, I am not in government, so I am not in a position to have such conversations, but it is important that the Opposition raise questions about what the Government have been talking to their EU partners about and whether they have been able to form any of the alliances that other hon. Members have mentioned to get the best possible way forward.

John Redwood: Do the hon. Lady and her party agree that we do not want more transfers of power over our criminal justice system to the EU and that we wish to protect our common law traditions?

Diana Johnson: As I just said, we are interested in trying to deal with crimes such as human trafficking, financial fraud and the serious organised crimes that go across borders, which are not about what is happening in the UK but are Europe-wide and global. We should make sure that we have procedures in place to ensure co-operation where it is useful.
	The three main aims of the reforms are, as we understand it, to increase democratic accountability to member states’ legislatures; to increase efficiency through more streamlined management structures; and to improve EU member states’ effectiveness in the increasingly globalised fight against organised crime. All are laudable aims with which I am sure we all agree. Equally laudable is the aim of increasing our effectiveness in tackling cross-border crime. The Government’s current objections can be divided into those that need working through, which we recognise, and those that, I suggest, appear to be spurious.
	The major change, and the one that we recognise poses the biggest challenge, is the appointment of the national member. Under the proposed reform, member
	states will second a national member—a prosecutor, judge or police officer—to work full time at Eurojust. Member states will grant national members the power to fulfil the task conferred on them by the Eurojust regulation. That means national members, once appointed, will bear responsibility for ensuring that their member states co-operate with Eurojust, including through legal assistance, information exchanges, liaising with international bodies and assisting in joint investigation teams. National members, working with other competent authorities from member states, will also:
	“a) order investigative measures;
	b) authorise and coordinate controlled deliveries in the Member State in accordance with national legislation.”
	The Opposition accept that the appointment of national members represents a big step up for the role of Eurojust. We fully recognise that it is not acceptable for the national member to be in a position of oversight over the UK criminal justice system. I reiterate that we do not support any move to cede prosecuting powers to the EU, either to the EPPO or through some mechanism of Eurojust. However, we would like to see the Government attempt to reconcile those proposals with the current set-up in our criminal justice system.
	The Government appear concerned that, as currently formulated, the proposals could allow Eurojust to order investigations, or even prosecutions, that duplicate efforts already under way in the UK. Prosecutions in the UK of course require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, while investigation of most of the crimes listed in annex 1 are the responsibility of the newly formed National Crime Agency. Perhaps the Minister will explain what work is being done to look at the possibility of drawing the national member from one of those bodies and work on the basis of a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the UK retains sovereignty over our systems while improving cross-border co-operation. As has been mentioned, special arrangements will need to be put in place for Scotland.

Lady Hermon: Unfortunately, special arrangements will also have to be considered for Northern Ireland, because the National Crime Agency’s jurisdiction cannot be extended in full to Northern Ireland as a result of opposition from two parties, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party. It is most unfortunate indeed.

Diana Johnson: The hon. Lady is right that the National Crime Agency does not cover Northern Ireland. I am grateful to her for reminding me.
	The Commission envisages a special relationship between the EPPO and Eurojust, as I mentioned at the beginning and as the Minister set out. Of course we need to ensure that countries that are not involved in the EPPO—it is clear that the UK will not be, and others have already declared that they will be opting out—can still enjoy the co-operation of Eurojust without being drawn into the EPPO, which we all agree is a bad idea.
	The Opposition have less sympathy for some of the other concerns that the Minister put forward, particularly his concern about the European convention on human rights. It might be helpful if he explained that a little more. Our major concern remains that the Government seem prepared to allow the rest of Europe to go along with these matters without us being at the table.

Henry Smith: With respect, the hon. Lady has still not answered the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) asked: does she advocate opting in now, and therefore being locked in?

Diana Johnson: I think that I made it very clear to the hon. Gentleman that we will not be opposing the motion this evening, but we have questions on what the Government have been doing up to now to ensure that this is not the only avenue open to them, and whether we might have been able to get some agreement before we ended up where we are today. Our major concern remains that the Government seem to have been prepared to allow the rest of Europe to go along without us, and instead of working for reforms that protect the rights of the UK they are allowing the rest of the European Union to set up an agreement that works for it and then saying, “We’ll make a decision later.”
	I have a few questions I would like the Minister to respond to, either in his winding-up speech or in writing. What work is being done to look at how a national member could be appointed for the UK? Is there any mileage in that proposal? Will the Minister confirm the timetable? According to the European Scrutiny Committee, the deadline is 21 November, but the Minister has suggested, both in written evidence to the Committee and in the House, that the Government will wait until at least 2014, possibly later. Does the deadline of 21 November still stand?
	Will the Minister clearly confirm the Government’s position on the current Eurojust arrangements? It is a little disconcerting that the motion does not contain a commitment to maintain the current arrangements and agreements, even though the Home Secretary indicated to the Home Affairs Committee that that is the Government’s desired outcome. Is that correct?

James Brokenshire: I am happy to clarify that the existing Eurojust measure was on the list of 35 measures that we would seek to opt back into following the exercise of our block opt-out. Obviously, they are being analysed by the relevant Select Committees, so we will await their determination before taking further action.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
	When did the Government actually get around to raising concerns about the structure of Eurojust and the EPPO at EU level? Those concerns are set out in a memorandum dated 7 August 2013, but surely the Government’s efforts to secure a better outcome began before that. The Government had various chances to discuss Eurojust’s future with the Commission, so did they raise those concerns?
	For example, a strategic seminar entitled, “Eurojust and the Lisbon treaty: Toward more effective action”, was held in Bruges in September 2010. Did the Government raise then any of the concerns that they are raising now? There was another opportunity to discuss Eurojust’s future at an event marking its 10th anniversary at the European Council in February 2012. A Eurojust and Academy of European Law conference called “Ten years of Eurojust: Operational Achievements and Future Challenges” was held at The Hague in November 2012. Were the concerns raised then?
	On 18 October 2012, the Commission consulted member state experts and others about a possible reform of Eurojust. According to the Commission:
	“The meeting generally supported improving Eurojust’s governance structure and efficiency.”
	What did the UK representatives say at that meeting? The Commission then instigated a consultation on the strengthening of Eurojust. What issues did the Government raise?
	What improvements to Eurojust have the Government been pushing for? We all support more effective co-operation on cross-border action against serious crime and it would be helpful to know what work the UK Government have been doing to lead that agenda at European level. It would be good to see the UK setting the agenda, as was the case under the previous Government, rather than watching what happens and complaining when it does not reflect the specific interests of the UK.
	Finally, on the justice and home affairs opt-out in general, the Government have found time tonight, as they did last week, for a debate on the Floor of the House, which is to be welcomed. On both occasions, the Government have raised the issue of the opt-out, which is widely supported with regard to the EPPO, but other, more controversial areas of it also warrant proper discussion. As the Minister has said, we are waiting for various Select Committees to publish reports. Will he reiterate the Government’s assurances that time will be made available for a full debate on those reports on the Floor of the House?

Alan Beith: I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on one point and disagree with her on another. I agree that there should be a debate on the Floor of the House when the three Select Committees publish their reports. They will provide important guidance to the Government in their negotiations. Where I disagree with her is that it is not sufficient for her to say, “Even if it were true, I would not have started from here.” The question still has to be asked whether the Labour party would, if it had the opportunity, opt in to the Eurojust proposal or not. She conspicuously failed to answer that question, except in a way that suggested that she had been given a narrow mandate by somebody in authority in the Labour party.
	I start from the proposition that Eurojust is essential and that the European public prosecutor most certainly is not. For the one to get in the way of the other is harmful. Anyone who looked at the documentation for this debate and the excellent work of the European Scrutiny Committee would readily concede that there are many complexities to this matter. However, at its heart, there is a simple issue, which is that whereas cross-border crime requires an effective apparatus that takes advantage of our being in the European Union—we want to maintain those arrangements and it would be greatly contrary to Britain’s interests not to be part of them—the creation of the European public prosecutor is neither necessary nor, in the opinion of many of us, even desirable. That it should stand in the way of British participation and the participation of other countries in Eurojust is seriously harmful.
	There are two ways in which the situation that we are confronted with creates difficulties for any British Government, of whatever party political composition. The first is that the proposals on the European public prosecutor and on Eurojust are interlocking. The draft directive on Eurojust incorporates the European public prosecutor so extensively that it makes the position of a state that wants one and not the other very difficult.
	The second is that the mandatory powers that are given to national members of Eurojust fly in the face of arrangements in the United Kingdom. Of course, the arrangements throughout the United Kingdom are not uniform. The arrangements in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are quite different from those in Scotland. In Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the procurator fiscal can direct investigations. There is a clear separation between investigation and prosecution in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those differences need to be respected. If we can respect those differences in the United Kingdom, surely the European Union can respect the fact that the same objectives can be achieved by different legal systems.

Jim Shannon: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the concern of many in this House, including the Minister, over the data that are collected by the Commission, which show that the conviction rate in the UK is 23%, when in reality it is about 75%? The data that the Commission collects centrally go against what we are trying to do.

Alan Beith: There are many dangers in playing with those statistics. Not least, the objective of a 100% conviction rate seems to undervalue the ability of the court to determine that evidence is not sufficient to support conviction and punishment. We expect our courts to throw out cases that do not have a sound evidential basis. The whole statistical exercise is potentially dangerous and misleading.
	I speak for the Liberal Democrats, rather than for the Justice Committee, because, oddly enough, this is a home affairs power rather than a justice power, and there is no doubt that we want to be in Eurojust. We do not want Eurojust to be complicated by the wholly different proposal for a European public prosecutor, and we do not want Britain’s participation to be impaired in any way.
	The motion is carefully worded. It asserts that
	“the UK should not opt in to the draft Regulation on the Eurojust at this time and should conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting into the Eurojust Regulation, post adoption”.
	That wording is most ingeniously crafted. What I want it to mean is that we will make substantial efforts to ensure that we get a Eurojust regulation that meets our needs and those of a number of other member states that share our concerns and that can be allies in putting this matter right, so that there can be no doubt about our future co-operation in these arrangements, which greatly assist us in dealing with cross-border crime and catching up with fleeing criminals who dodge around the nations of Europe. That is of immense importance to us. I look forward to the Government’s active involvement in trying to get the Eurojust proposal right so that we can opt in to it in due course.

Dominic Raab: This motion must be considered in the context of the EU’s wider ambitions for a single policy on justice and home affairs. As mentioned earlier, the EU Justice Commissioner and vice-president, Viviane Reding, has a huge stake in this matter, and in a far-reaching speech last month she spoke about the considerable momentum towards developing a pan-European criminal code and institutions, replete with a European justice Minister—I dare say Ms Reding has a candidate in mind—and with detailed monitoring and sanctioning powers at Commission level. Those include new powers to uphold EU fundamental rights—a sort of triplication of the human rights legal framework, bearing in mind Strasbourg’s role in the Human Rights Act 1998 and UK jurisdiction, and an expanded role for the European Court of Justice. That is the clear ambition within the Commission and the broader EU. With that in mind, this is also a critical juncture for Britain. We remain poised to exercise our crime and policing opt-out under the Lisbon treaty. It is therefore the right moment—an important crossroads, perhaps—to think strategically about Britain’s criminal justice co-operation in the EU.
	On the specifics of the motion, I fully support the Government’s intention not to be part of the European public prosecutor’s office. That initiative is obviously—transparently—a preliminary stepping stone towards a much more far-reaching EU prosecutor, and it must be nipped in the bud. Although it is limited, at least on the surface, to countering fraud against the EU, under current terms the EPPO would take powers away from Eurojust. It would have the power to compel UK police to hand over evidence, and to order UK prosecutors to take action. Through its relationship with Eurojust, it could place wider burdens of co-operation on member states. The scope of those obligations will, of course, be decided by the Commission, and ultimately by the European Court. As the Minister has said, we must stay out of such a measure. I welcome the Government’s decision and the Minister’s clarity of purpose and position.
	We ought to emphasise the positive and we should preserve and retain our national criminal justice system. That system is steeped in a very different tradition from the civil, continental tradition, and in a different set of values. As hon. Members have already said, it is also steeped in a different functional division of law enforcement powers that enshrines a uniquely British conception of justice—one that is firm but fair.
	The Eurojust regulation is a more finely balanced question. I worked in The Hague and with Eurojust, which has done important work in recent years serving as a college of co-operating national prosecutors. Personally, as the Minister has said, I would prefer it to have continued down that route and in its current form, but the new regulation gives the Commission a seat on a new executive board and places a duty on Eurojust to forge a special relationship with the EPPO. It also imposes additional stronger duties of information sharing on member states, including the UK if it signs up.
	The EU Select Committee has highlighted the new powers given to representatives at Eurojust to bypass national authorities in order to process requests for sharing information or evidence, and I pay tribute to its excellent work. Again, all that would be interpreted and enforced by the Commission and the European Court,
	while increasing our contribution to the EU budget. I note that the Minister and the Government share those concerns and do not intend to opt in at this time. However, they leave open the prospect of “active consideration” of the case for opting in when the final text is agreed.
	The Opposition position on this matter is totally hopeless. They recognise the defects in the regulation and accept the motion that the Government have put before the House. They know the Government are actively resisting the supranational elements and creeping supranational character that some seek to impose on Eurojust, yet they criticise the Government for not being in the negotiation now. Such negotiation would, of course, mean that we were irreversibly tied in to the new regime if it cannot be changed. That is utterly untenable and the kind of thing one hears only from the Opposition.
	If hon. Members want to be churlish, they might question why the Government are currently rightly critical of the proposals, yet rather more enthusiastic about them for the future. I am not sure why that is, but I will limit myself to seeking confirmation from the Minister that the House will have an opportunity to debate and vote in advance of any later decision.

James Brokenshire: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that, if there were a subsequent recommendation to opt back in on the final approved text, I would envisage the process we are going through tonight being replicated. I can confirm to him that we are keeping the option open to opt back in at that later stage precisely for the operational reasons to which he alludes—the benefits of Eurojust as it is currently constructed.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Minister for setting out the Government’s position with admirable clarity.
	Given that we are discussing the substance of Eurojust and its evolution, I want to take this opportunity to ask more broadly what strategic thinking has been done on our wider future justice and home affairs relationship. What consultations has the UK had with the Commission and other member states on renegotiating Britain’s wider relationship with the EU in that critical area? It is right to assess each regulation or measure case by case, on its individual merits and substance, in a sober and pragmatic way—the Minister has done that cogently this evening—but, at the same time, we need to look to the bigger picture and the longer-term horizon.
	I worry that we will drift into a disjointed, albeit bespoke, relationship with Eurojust and the wider JHA framework almost by default, annoying our European partners without satisfying our national interest, risking the worst of all worlds. Would it not be better to grasp the nettle and spell out proactively, on the front foot, what strategic JHA relationship we want, and why that will serve the EU’s interest as well as the British national interest? In my view, that means a British commitment to be a good operational partner, with all the resources, know-how and expertise we bring to the game, but without sacrificing democratic control over such a sensitive area of national policy. It means saying to our European friends that our co-operation within Eurojust will improve
	operationally as trust and confidence develop, but that we cannot accept any further transfers of authority or control to the supranational level.

Mark Reckless: When my hon. Friend was a witness in the Home Affairs Committee, he recommended that, in respect of Europol, we might want to adopt the Frontex model. Does he believe that that could be an appropriate model for Eurojust?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is, as ever, spot on. Each area is fundamentally functionally different, but Frontex shows that countries do not have to be formal members that have signed up in a formal way to be active operational partners. We have heard that from the head of Frontex. It is at least a starting point for evolving our relationship with Eurojust and Europol. If, as I suspect, others within the Commission and member states want to go down the federalising route, that option should be clearly discussed now. We should be on the front foot, and not ashamed or beguiled from talking about it.
	We need to make it clear that we cannot accept any further transfers of authority, or the salami-slicing of national democratic authority—that is what we are seeing in the attempts to upgrade Eurojust and Europol. Will there ever be a better moment to have that candid but constructive conversation with our EU partners? I doubt it. Government Members have a commitment to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and to put the renegotiated deal to the British people in a referendum. We know that the British people care. According to a ComRes poll for Open Europe last year, repatriating UK control over crime and policing ranks fourth on the public’s list of priorities for renegotiation. That is very high compared with the other priorities surveyed. We also know that there is significant scepticism among the wider public at large on whether any politicians keep their promises on Europe.
	The Labour party is responsible for that haemorrhaging of trust. The Government have a genuine chance to rebuild public trust. That ought to start with the decisions we are taking now and over the next six months on crime and policing, underscored by a two-pronged strategic approach to our future JHA relationship with the EU—one that pledges the full operational co-operation of a strategic ally but defends the return of full democratic control, which the British people want and expect.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). His arguments were well put and I completely agree with them. I will try not to copy him too much, but he nailed the point that this measure is completely tied to the European public prosecutor’s office. It is a building block of it, and a morphing of what Eurojust was originally set up to do, taking it much further than any of us in this House would like.
	In last week’s debate, we did not get to the issue of what exactly the European public prosecutor’s office is, probably because the Minister asked us not to stray into that territory. According to the European Union, the European public prosecutor’s office will be a
	“prosecution office of the European Union with exclusive competence for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment crimes against the EU budget.”
	Those last few words are the most important.
	For the best part of two decades, the European Commission’s budget has not received a positive statement of assurance from the European Court of Auditors. A lot of money is wasted in maladministration, but a large sum also disappears through fraud, which has caused consternation in some circles for some time. People have, in the past, blown the whistle on areas where money has been filtered away illegally. The problem goes back to before 1999. Those of us who were involved in European affairs back then will remember that the Jacques Santer Commission fell in 1999 because of a scandal involving a failure to chase down fraud, and the ignoring of whistleblowers and internal fraud. When the Commission fell, there was a marked panic in European circles and a committee of independent experts was set up. That reported in March 1999 and again in September 1999 after the European elections of that year.
	Before 1999, there was an anti-fraud organisation in the European Commission called UCLAF, which after 1999 morphed into a similar anti-fraud organisation called OLAF. Its job was to chase down fraud, both internal and external, and to protect the financial interests of communities in and across the European Union. It was a simple transfer of powers from UCLAF to OLAF—alas, several members of staff also made the transfer—but OLAF did not really succeed in doing its job of chasing fraud for some time. Indeed, it tended to chase whistleblowers before it actually chased fraudsters who chose to defraud the European Union.
	All the time, the fraud figures for the European Union kept climbing. Some say it was as high as €500 million, although some would say it was even more. The question for this debate is why the big leap from having an anti-fraud office, which already has the powers to do the job within the context of the existing treaties, to something that would take a huge amount of powers away from member states? Why the huge power-grab?
	Alongside the proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office, the Commission has also published a communication on its ideas for OLAF in the future. It plans to table legislative proposals to alter the OLAF regulation in due course. As it happens, the Council and the European Parliament have only just agreed a revision to the 1999 OLAF regulation, which has been more than 10 years in the making. A key aim of that is to strengthen OLAF, the anti-fraud office of the European Union, and its investigative capabilities, and also to provide greater safeguards for those being investigated. The Commission’s proposals for the European public prosecutor’s office, however, would entail OLAF losing the powers to conduct investigations into fraud against the EU budget and being limited to investigations on other irregularities involving EU funds and misconduct or crimes committed by EU personnel that do not have a financial impact. It is gutting powers, which the European public prosecutor would use, from an existing body, because it wants an EPP with more powers. It is the precursor to this area of criminal justice that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton talked about. The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, noted the proposal to amend OLAF regulation and concluded:
	“We are disappointed to see that so soon after reform of OLAF’s regulatory framework has been agreed, the Commission, without waiting to see the impact of that reform, is suggesting
	further legislation including the creation of an EPPO. The Commission refers to this pre-emptive approach to policy-making and legislative reform somewhat euphemistically as ‘step-by-step’ when it seems more like leaps and bounds.”
	This is a case of leaps and bounds. We would have to change a number of things that we hold dear in our common law system. We have no arrest without evidence. The European public prosecutor will operate under a system of corpus juris, so that one can be arrested without evidence. We do not hold suspects for more than a fixed and limited time unless charges are presented in open court. Under corpus juris, a person can be held indefinitely. In our system, we believe we have the right to face one’s accuser and see evidence. Under corpus juris, the accuser may be anonymous and no right for the accused to see the evidence exists. We like to be tried by lay magistrates in most cases, have the right to trial of a jury of one’s peers and have an adversarial model. That is not the case under corpus juris, where a person is tried by professional judges, there is no right to trial by jury and there is an inquisitorial model. We like an open court. It is a closed court under corpus juris. We like the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Alan Beith: The phrase corpus juris is rather misleading—all it means is “body of law”. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that our system is different and provides safeguards in a different way, but it would be foolish if we were to look at the rest of Europe and say that they do not have any rights because their system of enshrining them is different to ours.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I fully accept that fact. I am just trying to outline what this big change would mean when, according to the European Commission’s figures, it is just—it is a big sum—meant to protect €500 million-worth of fraud against the EU budget. Is this a proportionate change that we would like to see? I would argue that it is not.
	Various people have come forward with individual cases regarding the difference between how the system operates now and how it would operate under a European public prosecutor. In one case, OLAF transferred information to the German and Bulgarian authorities relating to German and Bulgarian nationals who allegedly worked to defraud an EU agricultural and rural development fund scheme. Whereas the German proceedings led to a conviction, the proceedings in Bulgaria ended in acquittal—the current system led to different results in a cross-border case. The argument for a European public prosecutor is that it would have made a difference by ensuring consistency of investigation and prosecution in those countries, changing the nature of prosecution within a member state.
	Another example relates to cigarette smuggling from the Czech Republic into Germany. The German criminal court used telephone tapping records obtained by the Czech police as evidence to convict the suspect. Although that evidence was obtained lawfully according to Czech law, the defence lawyer argued that without a court order authorising the telephone tapping, the evidence was inadmissible in the German court. It comes to a certain point when one wonders whether a supranational body such as the European public prosecutor could ask for the phone tapping of a British national on a matter that might not be deemed worthy of phone tapping in the UK.
	This is a big step forward and we should note that it is all about a power grab from the European Commission, or a power grab from Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Justice. We should be very wary of where she goes from here. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked what discussions could be had, but having discussions with Viviane Reding can be very difficult, because she is completely focused on delivering an area of criminal justice for the EU. It is a ridiculous idea that cannot work, but were it to work, it would mean a complete change in how we do law in this country, and one that most of us in this place would fight to the death.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), with whom I am in almost entire agreement.
	As a brief aside, if the House will indulge me, I think one can take back the divergence between our legal system and that of the continent to the Fourth Lateran Council and Innocent III’s view that it was wrong for priests to stand and bless trial by combat. From that, our different systems developed.
	On the substance of the documents in front of us, the key is that the Lisbon treaty provided that a European public prosecutor’s office should be developed from Eurojust, which article 86(1) stated could go ahead by enhanced co-operation. In coming forward with these proposals, therefore, the Commission is starting from a very good treaty base, from its point of view. Fortunately, however, we have an equally good treaty base for rejecting it—our ability to opt in or not. I raise the flag of concern about what this whole process is about, and I urge the Government, regardless of the negotiations, not to opt in at the end of them, because it is all about creating a single form of justice within the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said.
	The degree of competence being created for Eurojust is extremely wide and is set out in annex 1 of the documents before us, which lists the forms of serious crime that Eurojust is competent to deal with in accordance with article 3(1). I will read the list out, as that has not yet been done, because it is important to understand how all-encompassing the list is: organised crime; terrorism; drug trafficking; money laundering; corruption; crime against the financial interests of the union; murder, grievous bodily injury, kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage taking; sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of women and children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes; racism and xenophobia; organised robbery; motor vehicle crime; swindling and fraud; racketeering and extortion; counterfeiting and product piracy; forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein; forgery of money and means of payment; computer crime; insider dealing and financial market manipulation; illegal immigrant smuggling; trafficking in human beings; illicit trade in human organs and tissue; illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters; illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiquities and works of art; illicit trafficking in arms, ammunition and explosives; illicit
	trafficking in endangered animal species; illicit trafficking in endangered plant species and varieties; environmental crime; ship-source pollution; crime connected with nuclear and radioactive substances; and genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. While some of those are undoubtedly extremely serious and have cross-border connotations, others are essentially national crimes that are most unlikely to have any international connotations. Tiresome though it might be, if one’s car radio is stolen, it is hard to see how that motor crime would have a particular effect on the good people of Luxembourg.
	The list goes on, because the proposed regulation coming from the EU allows Eurojust to cover related criminal offences, so it has the ability to go further than this already extensive list. I would argue that the Eurojust proposal contains a very wide set of competences and that Eurojust has significant power of its own. It can exercise its tasks at the request of the competent authorities of member states or, crucially, on its own initiative; it does not require a member state to intervene to set the wheels in motion that would lead to investigations taking place.
	The Commission sets out in its document that competent national authorities shall respond without undue delay to Eurojust’s requests and opinions made under article 4, which sets out the basis on which they may make such requests. What is being proposed will give Eurojust a very wide set of competences and an ability to demand responses. I am well aware that the Government’s concern over the directive is that there may be orders coming from member states to direct investigations in the UK and that they believe that that would be unsatisfactory. Eurojust itself does not get that direct power, but it is not very far from it, because national authorities have to respond without undue delay. Although they can cite operational reasons of an unspecified kind as to why they will not provide co-operation, that will be justiciable by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That seems to me to be a very major extension of the competence of the European Union into the criminal justice field.
	On the composition of Eurojust—I may have misunderstood this—it is surprising that it is not composed according to the ordinary rules of qualified majority voting, but by simple majority of the members of the college. The members of the college will be one representative of each member state, each of whom will have, according to article 10, a single vote. It would mean that the UK, if we were to opt in to this set of proposals, could be outvoted without even having the benefit of the extra weighting to our vote. The college is set up to maximise the power of the centre against the countries. The proposals give enormously wide control to Eurojust even if the Government’s queries on direct orders from other members and the relationship with the European public prosecutor’s office are answered. That is a fundamental step in reversing—you will be horrified to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker— the differences that developed in 1215 with the Fourth Lateran Council.

James Brokenshire: We have had a full and lively debate, characterised in customary fashion by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He, like others, set out a number of the significant concerns that are held not only by the Government, but by Members across
	the House about the Commission’s proposals for a European public prosecutor’s office and the construction of Eurojust.
	This country derives real benefits from its participation in the current Eurojust, which is about practical co-operation; from collaboration; and from the number of cases that have been assisted by the establishment of joint investigation teams. But that does not mean that we should now opt in to a new measure that is clearly so fundamentally flawed because of the intrinsic link to the European public prosecutor’s office. Some of these significant issues have been highlighted in the impact they would have on our criminal justice system.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was critical of the system of the block opt-out and of having to opt out and then opt in before dealing with new EU measures such as those we are debating this evening. This was precisely the structure that her Government negotiated. If she is unhappy with this system, she needs to look to herself and to her hon. Friends who were party to the construction of the mechanism.
	The hon. Lady highlighted and questioned the date of 21 November. I can say very simply that that is the latest date on which the UK would be able to exercise its opt in. It is three months from the publication of the last language version of the relevant regulation, which is the time period referred to. She also highlighted some concerns about fundamental rights. I draw her attention to the explanatory memorandum, which was signed by the Minister for Immigration on 7 August and sets out the fundamental rights analysis. That will explain to her the issues she highlighted.
	Questions have been raised about the national member. Indeed, the hon. Lady asked whether we should negotiate a better position for the national member, and whether the Government would express their concern in respect of Eurojust and the European public prosecutor’s office. She mentioned the 10th anniversary of Eurojust. I was there and made those very points at that time. Indeed, one of the first things that I said at the first Justice and Home Affairs Council I attended following the election of this Government was that we would not participate in the European public prosecutor’s office. I can therefore assure her that we have consistently made our views plain on the lack of a need for a European public prosecutor’s office. We believe that there are more practical ways of dealing with these issues.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) talked about the separation of powers. That is intrinsic to the question. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) made a point
	about how supranational organisations cut across the fundamental building blocks in our criminal justice system. That is why it is right that, if the House approves the motion tonight, we will not be opting in to the measures.
	We note that the various Committees will be publishing their reports on the block opt-out, and we look forward to receiving them. The Government have committed to holding a further debate in the House on the final proposals for opting back in, in respect of the 2014 block opt-out. Further work is taking place on the balance of competences, and it will continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton talked about where competence should lie, and that question is informed by the ongoing work. We are taking evidence to inform the broader debate, but that should be seen as distinct from the exercise of the Government’s treaty right in respect of the 2014 decision.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) mentioned the position of OLAF, the European fraud office. It is unfortunate that we have only recently seen proposals on the practical use of that office, but we believe that certain practical steps should be pursued as a result of their recent publication. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) mentioned issues of competence, and the need for us to look carefully at any final agreed text that emerges in relation to Eurojust.
	Given the yellow card that has been issued in relation to the European public prosecutor’s office, and the strong message that has been sent by a number of member states’ Parliaments in respect of this proposal, the Commission will need to reflect on this matter very carefully. It will also need to think about the Eurojust proposal, because of the interrelationship between the two. We will keep the House and the Select Committees updated as this matter progresses, but I very much hope that, in the light of the clear message from hon. Members tonight, the House will support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 12566/13, a draft Regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-operation (Eurojust), and No. 12558/13 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); agrees with the Government that the UK should not opt in to the draft Regulation on the Eurojust at this time and should conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting into the Eurojust Regulation, post adoption, in consultation with Parliament; and further agrees with the Government that the UK should not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the charging of fees in connection with applications for naturalisation as a British citizen made by members or former members of the armed forces; and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Harper.)

Jim Shannon: This is a straightforward proposal. Along with the residence requirements for naturalisation comes the process of charging fees. It is only right that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have to pay those fees, and members of Her Majesty’s armed forces or the diplomatic service overseas should also have to pay them. This measure concludes the price issue, and forms the last piece of the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Enterprise

That the draft Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Designation of the UK Green Investment Bank) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Madam Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 30 October (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Unauthorised Unit Trusts (Tax) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 7 November, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 14, the business determined by the Backbench Business Committee may continue until three o’clock, and shall then lapse if not previously concluded.—(Mr Gyimah.)

CRYSTAL PALACE PARK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Jim Dowd: I am most grateful for this opportunity, particularly today. Lewisham is only part of my constituency these days, but I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) that the Secretary of State for Health has been found by the Court of Appeal to have acted entirely improperly and illegally in seeking to close Lewisham hospital. I add that in passing; it is obviously not the main substance of my remarks this evening, and I do not expect the Minister to respond, but I doubt whether we have heard the last of that.
	This debate is about “the Crystal Palace”. One of the business papers mentioned “Crystal Palace”, and I was stopped by a constituent in Sainsbury in Sydenham who told me, “I see you have a debate on Crystal Palace next week; they are in terrible trouble, and I reckon they are going to get relegated.” This debate is not about Crystal Palace football club, although I am a long-time supporter and one-time season ticket holder. Neither is this debate about the original Crystal Palace club, which was one of the founder members of the Football Association, which celebrated its 150th anniversary just last Saturday. It is the oldest and original football association in the world. It was then an amateur club, which went out of business in 1861; it was based in what we now know as Crystal Palace.
	This debate is about “the Crystal Palace”, and perhaps I should have started the “the” with a capital letter in my request for this debate. As everybody knows from a long way back, this is one of the prime sites and locations for sporting excellence—not just in London, but in this country. The first FA cup finals were held at Crystal Palace and the national sports stadium was built there. It got its name from the relocation of the original building at Hyde park in the Great Exhibition of 1851. The building that was placed on the Sydenham hill side of what was then called Penge common was larger than the original that Joseph Paxton—later Sir Joseph Paxton—designed for Hyde park. The pictures make that clear. The construction in Hyde park was rather mundane; it looked almost like an out-of-town shopping centre compared with the magnificent structure built on the Sydenham hill side of Penge common.
	Sydenham hill is the highest point in Greater London, although when it was built and opened in 1854 by Queen Victoria, there was no such thing as Greater London. The fact that it is the highest point in the whole area explains why, when it burned down on 30 November 1936, the fire was alleged to have been seen—depending on which account one reads and from where one was looking—from either five, six, seven or eight counties.
	It is undeniable that the relocation of the Crystal Palace to that part of south-east London was instrumental in the development of the whole area, including Forest Hill, Sydenham, Penge and Norwood South, Upper and West, most of which are in my constituency. However, not only did the Crystal Palace arrive, but two separate railway stations arrived with it to accommodate the number of visitors who were expected. I shall return to that point later if I have time, in order to illustrate the concerns of today’s population.
	I suppose that the ultimate success of the presence of the Crystal Palace in that part of south-east London is represented by the fact that the area is now known as Crystal Palace. One of my constituents once remarked to me on how convenient it was that they had managed to move the Crystal Palace to a place called Crystal Palace. I had to explain that it was actually the other way round.
	The Crystal Palace moved to the area in 1854, and since the fire in 1936 it has undergone a number of changes of identity. The motor-racing circuit was very well used and highly thought of until the High Court ruled that, even back then, it was too much for local people. The motor racing died out in the early 1960s, although, as one who grew up in the area, I remember it clearly. Most famously, there was the Concert Bowl. During my dissolute youth, I attempted to go there to see Pink Floyd, but I could not get a ticket. I had to stay outside in Crystal Palace Park road and listen to the concert there. On the strength of that experience, I went out and bought a copy of “Atom Heart Mother”—but that is rather by the by.
	We then fast-forward to the days when the Greater London council had the stewardship of the park and the site. Not much happened then. I suppose that the most instrumental event of recent years took place in 1986, when the GLC was abolished and the site was handed to Bromley council. At the time, I was a member of the council of the London borough of Lewisham. Crystal Palace is often exemplified as an area of Greater London that has few parallels, in that five boroughs have boundaries there within a space of 200 yards: Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Croydon and Bromley, which is where the Crystal Palace park is now.
	As everyone will know, the abolition of the GLC was seen as a highly political issue by those on both sides of the argument. We suggested, along with our colleagues in Southwark, Lambeth and Croydon, that the park should be transferred to a trust encompassing all five boroughs. It is not just a local park; it has a much greater resonance and a much greater significance than that. However, our proposal was resisted, and the park was handed lock, stock and barrel to Bromley council.
	In 1989, Bromley came up with a scheme for the building of a hotel, a restaurant, shops and a pub. That culminated in the passing by the House of Commons of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1990, which limits development on the site. It consists extensively of metropolitan open land, so development on it without specific legal approval would be extremely difficult, and that it why the current proposals present problems for a number of people.
	In 1995, Bromley council established a working group to revitalise the sports centre. In the late 1990s there was a bid for funds from the single regeneration budget, principally involving a leisure facility, a multiplex cinema. The bid collapsed. The Government called the plan in, and then let it go. As some Members may recall, in 1999 Swampy and his pals climbed trees and went underground in an attempt to prevent the clearing of the site for the development, which was eventually dropped in 2000. The multiplex proposal was scrapped.
	The London Development Agency then launched a formal consultation, and appointed master planners for the park and its environs. The master plan was submitted and went through various processes until 2008, when it
	was approved by Bromley council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State, and there was an inquiry which was eventually resolved in favour of the plan. Although it was challenged in the High Court in 2011, the challenge was dismissed in 2012 and all appeals were dismissed in April this year. In July this year, leaks or releases—we can call them what we like, but these things never happen accidentally—were made about a scheme involving the Mayor of London, the London borough of Bromley and the ZhongRong Group. I am sure not many people in Lewisham West and Penge or this House have heard of the group. It has come forward with proposals to rebuild—or replicate, perhaps—the original Crystal Palace and to restore the gardens to the original standard that Sir Joseph Paxton had in mind when he finished the relocation back in 1854. That is an exciting proposal but it runs up against the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Act 1990, which as things stand forbids any such development.
	Mr Ni Zhaoxing—I have never met him, but he seems a perfectly reasonable chap; I will refer to him as Mr Ni—has an extravagant and vaulting ambition probably worthy of Sir Joseph Paxton himself and all the others who were involved, such as Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who designed the water towers at the original Crystal Palace at Sydenham hill. Mr Ni’s ambition may well reflect the ambitious, extravagant and visionary image of people at the height of British Victorian industrial power.
	I went to the launch of the scheme earlier this month, and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, was there, playing his normal shy and retiring role, and saying he would be happy to help if he possibly could, but he must not be dragged too much into it. That is strange, because other boroughs in our part of south-east London actually wanted Crystal Palace park to remain the responsibility of what became the Greater London authority. That was resisted by the Government before 1997, but now we have the Mayor of London involving himself along with the London borough of Bromley.
	I should add a brief word about the leader of the London borough of Bromley, Councillor Stephen Carr. He kindly invited me to the recent briefings—not the ones back in the summer—including the press launch on Thursday 3 October. An advisory board has been set up to steer the project forward, although these are very early days. The board will include Councillor Stephen Carr, Hank Dittmar, who is a special adviser to the Prince of Wales—I presume on environmental matters—Sir Tim Smit, deputy director of Eden Regeneration and co-founder of the Eden Project, which has a huge national reputation, and Sir John Sorrell CBE, chairman of the London design festival and UK Trade & Investment business ambassador. All are clearly worthy people, but what is missing from the group and the consultation is anybody local to Crystal Palace and the surrounding area. The $64,000 question—perhaps now the $1 million question—is this: is this good or is this bad? People need to know what is in the best interests of the area and the park, because this may be the one and only opportunity to take a major decision for the future.
	Let me quote from the Bromley borough council executive meeting of 16 October. It is safe to do so as this quote is from the public part of the proceedings; I have the confidential part as well, but I will not be quoting from that. It states:
	“Ever since the 1936 fire, the future of this park has been unclear, however the need for significant investment in this regionally important park has always been recognised.”
	It continued:
	“It has always been unclear, even with the proposed ‘housing’ funds”—
	from the master plan, which, as I say, was approved—
	“where this investment would come from. In the absence of a commercial scheme and significant private sector funding it is widely thought that the approved Master Plan is unlikely ever to be implemented in full.”
	The report continues:
	“The park would remain in the freehold ownership of the London Borough of Bromley, and would remain an open and free public space for all.”
	So far, so good. It goes on to say:
	“At the heart of this proposal is the aspiration for the local community to have a strong role in running, managing and maintaining Crystal Palace.”
	We would all say amen to that. However, we then get to the fact that Arup Associates, which has been hired by ZhongRong to oversee this project—I have no doubt that Arup Associates’ credentials are impeccable and that the firm is well used to large-scale civil engineering projects—estimates that it will be possible to draw an additional 2 million visitors to the palace and park per annum. That is 6,000 visitors a day, if they are spread out evenly. As we all know, that is not likely to happen; on some days there may be only 2,000, whereas on others there may be 10,000 or 12,000.
	Crystal Palace and that part of south-east London are already congested and overcrowded, and the public transport links are full to the gunnels. The roads have no more space to accommodate anybody. Even though the plan includes a 3,000-space underground car park to get people out of the park, which is fine, how on earth are we going to move that number of people in and out of the area at any given time?
	The restored park would be a public space for all to enjoy, and approximately 100 new jobs would be created there—that must be a good thing. It would increase the number of visitors, the footfall in the town centres and the expenditure there—that is another good thing. Some 1,000 jobs would be associated with the construction, and a further 1,000 associated with the operation of the palace and the other activities to which ZhongRong is keen to ensure local people have access.
	The picture is very mixed. I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, but it is entirely reasonable to check whether it has four legs and some teeth. Given all the impact that this huge change is likely to bring to our area, how do we assess whether it is in people’s best interests? When the original Crystal Palace turned up on Sydenham hill, it brought two new railway stations and railway connections with it. The high-level station has now gone, following the demise of the original Crystal Palace, and we are left with just Crystal Palace station. It has strong links to London Bridge, Victoria, East Croydon and all points south, and in recent years the East London line has been put in, adding capacity. But things have changed; one of the first things Mayor Johnson did on being elected in 2008, or whenever it was, was to cancel the Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace from Beckenham. We are now being told that
	everything possible will be done to improve transport links. This scheme cannot work without considerable transport improvements and considerable investment in transport in the area.
	I am just sketching out the ground, as these are early days. People who are for the scheme have contacted me, as have those who are against. Some people are against things that they do not even know will come into existence. The timetable for the development is as follows: by spring next year the design competition should have concluded; by autumn next year, those involved should be in a position to submit a planning application to the London borough of Bromley; if that is on track, they should have approval by autumn 2015; work should start on site in spring 2016; and we should have completion in 2018—I am available for the opening if they get that far.
	I am delighted to see the Minister in his place. I want to ask three key questions of the Government and I hope he can answer them. In view of the likely scale of this development—I know that the design competition is still to be decided—how can the London borough of Bromley decide on a planning application which will clearly be in breach of the 1990 Act? Surely the Act would need to be amended, abolished or repealed before the council would be able to consider such an application. It could not possibly give planning approval to something that clearly breaks the law. Will the Government underwrite a full consultation with all local groups, citizens and neighbouring local authorities to ensure that all voices are heard so that we can make the most informed decision about this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? This is a major departure from any previous planning guidelines or outlines and from the master plan for the park, so can the Minister assure me that if it were to move through all its stages and be approved by the London borough of Bromley, the Government would call it in for further inquiry and deliberation?

Nicholas Boles: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) for securing this debate on an issue of such dramatic importance for his constituents. In the short time left for my speech I want to make sure that I answer his questions, but I must first say that he is right that the Crystal Palace was one of those few iconic buildings. Even those of us who were not alive while it stood know what it looked like and think that it would be rather marvellous if this city had such a thing again.
	It is, of course, tremendously exciting that somebody in the world thinks it is possible, sensible and affordable to rebuild some version of the building, although obviously in modern form. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the proposal is at a very early stage and raises a huge number of complex issues for the developer and, critically, for the community in which Crystal Palace sits.
	The first point to make is the one on which the hon. Gentleman concluded, about the need for consultation. All planning applications are better off if there is intense consultation at the earliest stage possible. A planning application on the scale that this is likely to be can succeed only if there has been consultation at every stage from the start, binding in not only local elected
	officials but as many local people as possible in public meetings, through exhibitions and through every form of consultation. I know that that is well understood by the Mayor’s office and by the London borough of Bromley, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right to emphasise the need. The Government will be very clear that such a proposal will have little chance of getting anywhere without consultation from the start.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a point about the effect on transport infrastructure. Government policy is very clear that developments of any kind must be sustainable and one of the ways in which this scheme must be sustainable is by ensuring that the transport infrastructure is able to support the level of activity and movement generated. A development on this scale will have a dramatic effect on the transport infrastructure and although of course the transport infrastructure in that part of London is enviably good compared with that in some other urban areas in the country, it nevertheless cannot cope with an unlimited amount of additional demand. That will be an incredibly important part of any planning application and of the consultation to which we have just referred.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked how a planning application and the process of granting permission could be reconciled with the legislative obstacles he has identified. We have made it very clear to the Mayor of London and the London borough of Bromley that we are happy to work with them to try to resolve those legislative issues through whatever means necessary, although we hope that what they require of this House will be minimal. We remain ready to do that. It is sometimes possible to give planning permission subject
	to conditions, but I agree that it is unusual and perhaps unprecedented to give planning permission when one of the conditions is a change in the law. I would imagine that he is probably right that any necessary changes to legislation would need to be made in parallel with consideration of the planning application. As he points out, however, these are early days. We have not even seen an outline planning application, so we do not necessarily need to know right now how we will jump that hurdle if we get that far.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a tremendously exciting project for his constituents, for London and for the country. It is right that the London borough of Bromley and the Mayor have decided to embrace it and to bring in very high-quality firms and individuals as advisers. It is incredibly important that this is not an elite project and that it is carried out by, for and with the support of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and all those who live close to that dramatic landmark. We can all see the potential, but we can also see some risks if there is any sense in which the project is visited upon a community by others who think it is a grand idea but will not have to live or work next to it.
	The hon. Gentleman is quite right to stand up for his constituents and to continue to do so. I know that my Department will be happy to work with him in ensuring that that consultation takes place, that the transport infrastructure is adequate and that the planning process fully takes into account the opinions of his constituents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.